Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Disabled People

Mr. Spring: What meetings she has recently held with (a) disabled people and (b) disability organisations.[14630]

The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): In the past six weeks Department of Social Security Ministers and I have met more than 40 organisations representing people with disability or health problems. We regard it as a crucial part of our work to meet disabled people and disability organisations so that they can help to shape our approach of helping to get people with health problems and disabilities into work and providing support for them to stay in work.

Mr. Spring: May I tell the right hon. Lady that there is genuine anger and frustration among many disabled people and disability organisations at the perception that

the Government are not keeping to their pre-election promises, not least that of a direct Cabinet post? As for the consultations that are taking place, there is a feeling that those are leading to nothing and have no depth.

Ms Harman: There is no question of our not keeping pre-election promises. Before the election and in our manifesto, we said that we would reform the welfare state around the work ethic and that we would comprehensively review Department of Social Security spending to ensure that it conformed with our priorities to help those who can work into work and support their staying in work and to ensure that those who cannot work have the right combination of care and cash in support.

Mr. Llew Smith: Has my right hon. Friend given any further thought to the restoration of reduced earnings allowance to the disabled former miners, steelworkers and others who had the allowance taken from them? When in opposition, Labour said that it would take little money to compensate those people, so will she consider doing that, because it is an area in which the Labour Government could make a difference?

Ms Harman: We were concerned about the taking away of the reduced earnings allowance, which the previous Government did without giving proper notice to people who were heading into retirement. We reviewed the reduced earnings allowance, but decided that we could not restore it to those from whom it had been taken and keep our manifesto commitment to stay within our departmental spending totals. However, as we move into a situation where those who are retired get retirement allowance rather than reduced earnings allowance, we have made certain that they are contacted by the Benefits Agency and made aware of what income they will receive when they retire.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State agree with her advisory committee that there appears to be a cliff edge in benefit entitlement between those judged to be incapable of all work and all others? Does she recognize


that there should be more of a continuum between capability and incapability? Might not that lead to a reform of the all-work test to enable those who are partially disabled to dip in and out of temporary, part-time or sporadic work in a way that does not prejudice their entitlement to benefit?

Ms Harman: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point and with the point made by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is certainly true that the previous Government concentrated on people's incapacities rather than on their capacities; their disability rather than their ability and that the result was a growing number of people written off to a life on benefit. We are determined to turn that around and to ensure that if people have some capacity to work—even though they have fluctuating health problems or quite severe disabilities—our responsibility is to help them get into the mainstream and achieve a degree of financial independence by helping them to get work and supporting them in work. We are looking to reform the benefits system so as to provide that help into work, rather than simply a handout.

Mr. Skinner: I was interested in my right hon. Friend's remark that the Department had to stay within its spending limit. I assume that she means that the Government have accepted the fact that they have to deal with this lousy Tory budget for the next two years—a wrong—headed decision in my opinion. The cuts in reduced earnings allowances often meant that people who had worked in heavy industry lost about £30 out of a £40-a-week allowance. May we therefore assume that after the two-year quarantine is over we will get back on the road of doing what we all said in opposition—Front Benchers and Back Benchers alike—which was that cutting the allowances was an evil act by the Tory Government which the Labour Government would put right?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend has asked about the first two years and thereafter. We said in the manifesto on which both he and I were elected that we would stay within the laid-down departmental spending totals for the first two years. Thereafter, we said, we would reform the welfare state around the work ethic so that we can invest more public money in opportunities and need to spend less on the costs of social and economic failure.
The cut in the reduced earnings allowance was one of many such cuts made over 18 years by the Tory Government. We reviewed the situation but decided that to stay within our manifesto commitments we were not able to restore the cut.

Mr. Llwyd: Will the right hon. Lady confirm how many written representations she has received on her recent social security review? Is she aware of the widespread unease about it on the part of disability organisations, which naturally feel that they are not being properly consulted? Can she reassure the House that there will be no radical changes to disability benefits until there has been full consultation with interested parties in the course of a full and formal review?

Ms Harman: My Ministers and I are meeting the full range of organisations concerned with issues of disability on a regular and continuing basis. Not only are we discussing with them the issues that fall to us to review

but we are discussing with them how they will play a part in our pilot projects under the new deal for the long-term sick and disabled. We intend to work in partnership with the voluntary organisations to invest £195 million from the windfall levy in pioneering projects to help people into work. So not only are we talking to the organisations concerned with people with disabilities but we are working with them to shape and test our projects.

Old-age Pension

Mr. Wilkinson: If she plans to announce proposed changes to the state old-age pension system before the Christmas Adjournment. [14631]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): We have no such plans.
The pensions review, announced on 17 July, is looking at the central areas of insecurity for elderly people, including all aspects of the basic state pension and its value. A key objective of the review is to ensure that pensioners have security and dignity in retirement, that they should share fairly in rising national prosperity and that public finances should be both sustainable and affordable.
The first part of the review ended on 31 October and we are now carefully considering the 1,700 responses we have received.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful for that answer. Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the much trumpeted stakeholder pension was one of the central planks of his party's election manifesto? Will not the public be disappointed that there has been no concrete action to date? Since 2 May, have not the activities of the Department to which the Minister belongs been largely characterised by personality clashes, turf wars and a supine acquiescence in the dictates of the Treasury, which removed dividend interest tax relief, to the detriment of private and company pension holders?

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The first phase of consultations on the pensions review has produced a consensus not just on the need for low-cost, value-for-money, flexible stakeholder pensions but on the possibility of introducing them—which the previous Government signally failed to achieve. We will consult shortly on the further details of the stakeholder pension, but the truth is that since the Government were elected, low-cost, value-for-money second pensions for people who cannot join employers' occupational schemes have moved from election policy to something that can be turned into concrete reality.

Mr. Leslie: May I point out to my hon. Friend the need to raise awareness among the public at large of pension provision, especially in the private sector? Has much progress been made during the pensions review regarding a widespread education programme on pensions, especially for people at the start of their working lives?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is essential that we increase knowledge about and understanding of pensions and that individuals are


empowered to take the right decision for them about their pension provision. That is why we established a pensions education and awareness group, drawing on governmental representatives and the private sector, which will report in January on the best way for us to improve pensions knowledge.

Mr. Rendel: How do the Government explain their double standards? Before the general election they promised pensioners that they would identify those who were losing out and ensure that they got everything to which they were entitled, yet now, apparently, part of the Government's plans for pensioners—who very often are the people who find it hardest to claim benefit—is to refuse to allow them to claim benefits, including income support, backdated by more than one month.

Mr. Denham: We have already taken action to initiate research into why 1 million pensioners do not receive the income support to which they are entitled. We need to undertake that research so that we can modify and modernise the social security system to make it work more effectively. Equally, we must simplify and modernise the social security system so that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled at, or as close as possible to, the moment they can claim them. Allowing many people not to claim their benefits for a long time is not the way to run the system. We need to establish why pensioners are not claiming and to ensure that the system makes it easier for them to claim.

Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend believe that the review provides the chance to get rid of an anomaly—it is a problem that occurs year after year—regarding the non-index-linked parts of the pension, such as the £10 Christmas bonus and the 25p extra for 80-year-olds, that has existed for about 50 years? Does not the review give us the chance to remove those problems from the system permanently?

Mr. Denham: The Christmas bonus and its future value is one of the topics that are under discussion with the national pensioners convention as part of the wider review of all the forms of income that pensioners receive.

Housing Benefit

Mr. Bob Russell: What assessment she has made of the impact of the single room rent rules for housing benefit for recipients aged under 25 years. [14633]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): We are currently gathering information from a wide variety of sources to assess the national impact of these changes which we inherited from the previous Government. We will keep them under review. We revoked the regulations laid by the previous Government, which would have extended the rules to people over 25 years of age.

Mr. Russell: You have had six months now to do the review. How much longer is it going to go on? Will you accept from me that—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will speak through the Chair. It is not "you". He has been here six months now.

Mr. Russell: Does the Minister agree that the Government have had six months to do the review?
How much longer will it go on? Does he accept that, every day, the homelessness problem for young people is getting worse? How does that fit in with the spirit and thrust of the welfare-to-work new deal proposals?

Mr. Bradley: The Department has commissioned research on this matter and we are taking information from a sample of local authorities throughout the country. We are also receiving direct representations from a number of organisations and a number of reports have been commissioned on that aspect. We hope to be in a position to report on those matters early next year.

Mr. Brazier: Why does the Minister think that the position of 26 and 27-year-olds is so different from that of those just under the age of 25? Specifically, does he believe that it is right that anyone should be supported on benefit in a better level of accommodation than their working counterparts on modest wages can afford, living on their own?

Mr. Bradley: There is clearly a cost differential between the under-25 and over-25 age groups. We are determined not to extend the mean-minded measure put in place by the previous Government for people aged between 25 and 60. We are reviewing the position for those who are under 25 and will report on our findings early next year.

Lone Parents

Mr. Chope: What proposals her Department has to encourage lone parents to find employment. [14634]

Ms Harman: In July, the Government launched the new deal for lone parents in eight areas of the country. It will be rolled out nationally in October next year. The new deal is a pioneering programme that recognises and backs lone parents' desire to work and it is the first step in our plans to reform the welfare state around the work ethic.

Mr. Chope: Will the Secretary of State apologise for spinning a story about a one-in-four success rate in the pilot project for the new deal for lone parents whereas, as is revealed in today's The Times, the success rate was one in 20? Is she alarmed by the report from the United States that her policy is doomed to failure while that of the Minister of State is more likely to succeed?

Ms Harman: I shall answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question first and then return to the first part.
The Government's position on the new deal is clear. We are inviting lone mothers whose youngest child is five or over to come along for advice and information about seeking work. The previous Government simply told lone mothers to stay on benefit until their youngest child was 16. That policy did not work and resulted in a million lone mothers bringing up 2.2 million children on income support and never seeing the world of work. The previous Government then complained about the spiralling benefit bill. Instead of carping, the Opposition should back our approach to enabling lone mothers to be independent and return to work.
We reported the figures in our first three-months report on this pioneering and innovative programme. In the first eight areas, there is a total of 40,000 lone mothers. We did not expect all 40,000 to walk in the door on the first day. Had they done so, we could not have managed the programme. It is a phased programme and we expect to invite the 40,000 lone mothers in in the first year. Within the first three months, we have invited 8,000 to see their new deal personal advisers, told them that the advice is available and asked them to make an appointment. Within the first three months, 2,000 lone mothers have had appointments.
The response of lone mothers has been to welcome the programme. Employers, too, have welcomed the programme and are offering jobs. The previous Government's approach was simply to leave lone mothers on benefit. Of the first 2,000 women who have been interviewed, four out of five want to continue actively seeking work. The previous Government told them to stay on benefit until their youngest child was 16. Of those who have seen their personal adviser, one in four has a job. Some of those women had been on benefit for 20 years until we offered them advice and support.
That is a welfare-to-work programme in action. I would expect the Opposition to welcome the financial independence that it brings, the help that it offers the poorest children and the cut in the benefits bill.

Ms Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Government's abject failure to enable lone parents to return to work was to the detriment not only of those families but of the nation's purse? For example, this year's £100 million housing benefit bill has been escalating. Does she further agree that, by helping lone parents into work, the new deal will release some resources for those in greatest need?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was not just that the previous Government left lone mothers on benefit, written off to a life on benefit dependency; worse still, they stigmatised them and used them as scapegoats for all society's ills when they criticised them once a year at the Conservative party conference. The pioneering programme that we have established within six months of coming to office backs lone parents in their desire to work for a better standard of living for themselves and their children. They tell us that they do not want to depend on benefit but would rather work, which is why they welcome the hand up that we are giving them instead of simply a handout.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The welfare-to-work programme and the jobseeker's allowance—particularly the jobseeker's allowance, which is proving a success—have at their heart a compulsory element: they compel people to take up jobs. From recent reports in the press, we learn that that is even being considered for the new deal for lone parents. Will the right hon. Lady come to the Dispatch Box and confirm or deny those reports? Will she tell us whether compulsion will form any part of the new deal for lone parents during the lifetime of this Parliament?

Ms Harman: Compulsion is not the issue for the new deal for lone parents. The hon. Gentleman is muddling up two things. We are clear that when young unemployed

people are offered—as they will be by this Government—a choice of high-quality training and work, they will be expected to take up those opportunities and that the option of a life of full dependence on benefit is not available to them. In respect of lone mothers, the hon. Gentleman need only read our manifesto, which says that we will invite lone mothers whose youngest child has started school to meet their new deal personal advisers. Compulsion is not the issue. Lone mothers are being invited in.
Why does the hon. Gentleman raise the issue of compulsion rather than recognise that, after the previous Government left lone mothers on income support until their youngest child was 16, he is now calling for us to go further than inviting them in? I have made it clear: compulsion is not an issue in the new deal for lone mothers. We are inviting them in and the early results are very encouraging.

Pension Provision Group

Mr. Coaker: If she will make a statement on the role of the pension provision group. [14635]

Mr. Denham: As part of our wide-ranging review of pensions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed the pension provision group to provide her with an independent analysis of the current state of pension provision in the United Kingdom and of likely future trends.
The group is chaired by Tom Ross, vice-president of the National Association of Pension Funds. Its members are pensions experts from outside the Government who come from a wide range of backgrounds and interests. The group's report will advance our review by providing a valuable and independent analysis, on the basis of which we will shape our plans for a modern and fair pensions system for the future.

Mr. Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the appointment of the pension provision group provides an opportunity to deal with the mess that we are in, with today's pensioners having inadequate resources and tomorrow's pensioners not saving adequately to meet their needs? Does he agree that we have the opportunity to provide for today's and tomorrow's pensioners in a way that will make real progress, rather than merely grab cheap headlines?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. One of the critical roles of the pension provision group will be to identify the groups that face retirement on low incomes because they are unable to build up an adequate pension. That is also why we hope that it will provide the essential background to take forward our case for value-for-money stakeholder pensions, to bring better value-for-money, flexible pensions to those who cannot join an employer's occupational scheme at present.

Mr. Collins: In the new spirit of openness and contrition that affects the Government, will the Minister make it clear whether any members of the pension provision group have bought their place in it by donations to the Labour party?

Mr. Denham: No.

Ms Hewitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important, when considering the work of the pension


provision group, to ensure that future pensions policy takes account of the rapid changes taking place in employment and family structures? Will he take this opportunity to condemn the providers of personal pension schemes who, while claiming greater flexibility for their product, are penalising their contributors who are subsequently offered the opportunity to join an occupational pension scheme?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend raises a number of important points. The world in which pensions have to be delivered for the future is changing rapidly. For example, the number of large employers offering final salary occupational schemes is declining and there is a need for better pension provision for those in the more modern and flexible work force. Pension mis-selling was a scandal, and I am extremely grateful for the measures being taken by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to clear up that matter. It is also clear that, in the future, people must have access to value-for-money, flexible pensions that do not penalise them if, for example, they change employment or must alter their pension provision after a relatively short time in a pension scheme.

Mr. Webb: Does the Minister accept that, while the pension provision group is conducting its deliberations, many pensioners will be suffering from cold and inadequate heating this winter? Does he accept that it is perfectly obvious why most elderly pensioners do not claim benefit and that we do not need lengthy research to discover the reasons? Does he agree that immediate action, such as an increase in the addition to pensions for the over-80s, would be an immediate and constructive response that is guaranteed to reach pensioners in need?

Mr. Denham: It is essential that we establish why a million pensioners do not claim the income support to which they are entitled: we must have that information if we are to move forward. A series of measures—including the cut in VAT on fuel, the reduction in the gas levy and falling fuel prices—will enable vulnerable groups, including pensioners, to heat their homes this winter.

Mr. Swinney: In his earlier answers, the Minister quite understandably attacked pension mis-selling and reiterated the importance of pension funds being sufficiently strong to guarantee the payment of earnings to retired people. Will the Minister send a message to Scottish local authorities which estimate that, in the next financial year, they will have to find £36 million in additional contributions to pension funds in order to compensate for the cut in tax credit on advance corporation tax introduced in the Budget in July?

Mr. Denham: The tax change introduced in July was part of a series of measures designed to promote long-term investment in the British economy that will improve the future of British firms and, most important, generate the wealth from which future pensions can be paid. We shall consider the situation of local authorities at the appropriate time.

Mrs. Gillan: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the operation of the pension provision group is of great concern to the women of this country. Therefore, can the Minister tell me what input into the workings of that

group will be made by the Minister for women who, since her belated appointment, has been conspicuous by her absence from the Dispatch Box—and is conspicuous by her absence again today? Is she part of the Department of Social Security team? Will she have any input into the pension provision group or any other policy area, or is she the invisible woman?

Mr. Denham: I make it clear that three women serve on the pension provision group—Ruth Hancock, Joanne Segers and Anne Wood—and represent the wide range of experience and knowledge that will be brought to bear on the group. Women's pension rights are a central concern of the pensions review, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear when she launched the review in July. We have made it perfectly clear that closing the pensions gap between men and women is one of the fundamental challenges of the pensions review.

Lone Parents

Mr. David Heath: What estimate she has made of the number of new claims by lone parents for income support in financial years (a) 1997–98 and  (b) 1998–99. [14636]

The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Department estimates that there will be 350,000 awards in both years.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Minister for Public Health, who claimed that many poor women smoke because they feel that their lives are hopeless? Does he believe that the many lone parents who are unable to find work will feel more or less hopeless when their benefits are cut?

Mr. Field: I am sure that all of them will feel more hopeful because this Government have a positive, proactive policy that is helping them back to work—unlike the previous regime.

Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which to reduce the number of lone parents who are forced to claim income support is to provide available and affordable child care? What plans does he have to improve that provision as part of the new deal?

Mr. Field: The Government are developing a national child care strategy, which will be implemented during the life of this Parliament. Each of the single parents coming forward for interviews is seeking that information and being given it.

Mr. Burns: Can I press the Minister to confirm that, notwithstanding what the Secretary of State said, of the 8,600 letters that went out in the pilot scheme, 75 per cent. —about 6,600—of the people who received them did not bother to reply; and that, of the 1,600 people who went to see a personal adviser, only 433 have gone into a job, which is about 5 per cent. of all those who were contacted?
I am particularly pleased that the Minister is here. Does he agree with Professor Lawrence Mead that there has to be a ground of compulsion for the new deal for lone


parents to work? Does the Minister agree that, if there is no compulsion, it will be a failure? Given that the jobseeker's allowance and welfare to work for young people rests on compulsion, are the Government preparing a U-turn to bring in compulsion for the new deal for lone parents? That is a question that the Secretary of State studiously refused to answer.

Mr. Field: The answer to the first of a series of questions is that the hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Of the people who were invited to attend, three quarters responded and, of those who responded, a quarter are already in work. I thought that the Opposition would support that. My views vis-a-vis Lawrence Mead are made very plain in the document that the hon. Gentleman is holding.

Benefits Advice

Mr. MacShane: What steps she is taking to make benefit information and advice available (a) by telephone and (b) electronically. [14637]

Ms Harman: Local offices are trying to improve their telephone services. We have advice lines for family credit, for pensioners and for sick and disabled people and their carers. We want to modernise the social security system, so we shall explore all possible ways to use new information technology to improve the speed, accuracy and accessibility of benefit advice.

Mr. MacShane: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that the Conservative party lost the election of 1 May not simply because it consists of a bunch of sleazebags but because the Conservative Government were the architects of the dependency culture, which has left too many citizens in Britain without a sense of right and control over their own lives? If she tries to telephone some of the plethora of numbers that she has inherited, she will find that she will need a Ph.D in code breaking to understand them or get through. Will she consider setting up one 0800 freeline to cover all social security inquiries, and also consider a form of smartcard so that citizens, who have as much right in times of trouble to help from other citizens through the state benefit systems, have some control over their lives? We should break the dependency culture, which is the most wicked of all the wicked inheritances from the Conservative party.

Ms Harman: Yes, I shall consider having a single benefit advice line. We need to modernise the delivery of services, and that means the right mix between telephone advice and face-to-face advice, and also advice that people can access without being face to face—through kiosks and computer software. One of the things that we shall also look at is how we can deliver information and benefits using new technology so that people do not have to go from pillar to post giving the same information five different times and then having to work out how all the different answers fit together. Modernisation of the delivery of social security is long overdue.

Mr. Baldry: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most cost-effective ways of getting information to claimants is through citizens advice bureaux,

where volunteers give advice in a very professional way? However, very often citizens advice bureaux have to struggle year on year for funds, both core funding and funds to run themselves. Is it not in the interests of central Government to provide further assistance to citizens advice bureaux?

Ms Harman: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Department of Social Security does not give grants to voluntary organisations. However, we are working in partnership with citizens advice bureaux on a pioneering project on how we can use new technology to share information between the Department and voluntary organisations. It is designed to ensure that those organisations that give advice to claimants have the most up-to-date information and can settle those claimants' queries. We believe that, whether such claimants turn up at a benefits office, citizens advice bureau or other advice centre, they are entitled to receive full, accurate advice promptly.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We would all welcome the modernisation of the forms that people are required to fill in and we would welcome any kind of modernisation that means that people can get accurate information quickly. However, will my right hon. Friend remember that many of our constituents still have the old-fashioned idea that speaking face to face to a human being is infinitely preferable even to the best organised kiosk with a computer in it? It will be a long time before the people whom my right hon. Friend is talking about will be happy if they do not receive personal service.

Ms Harman: We want to ensure that everybody receives personal service, but the question is whether it is the right sort of service. We know that some people want face-to-face advice and information, and we are considering that option. Some people want to be able to talk to someone direct. Other people do not want to go into the benefits office or wait there to talk directly to someone because they would rather sort it out on the telephone. A third category wants neither to talk to anyone on the phone nor to see anyone face to face, but to access the system. The key to modernisation is a personalised service and flexibility. It is not a matter of considering the people about whom my hon. Friend or I am talking, but providing the right range of services so that people can receive the services that they want in order to get the advice that they need in a manner with which they feel most comfortable.

Mr. Gorrie: Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will the Secretary of State pay some attention to the variable quality of the personal advice given at different offices? I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience as me when constituents have complained that they have been to various offices several times and only on the fourth or fifth visit to a particular one have they been offered a constructive suggestion by someone which makes all the difference. Can we have some system whereby staff are encouraged to take a constructive attitude towards trying to help people? I am sure that many of them do so, but some do not.

Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point which relates to a number of different issues.
First, it is important that an understanding is established throughout the Benefits Agency that people are entitled to the highest quality of service and politeness, whatever the circumstances of their case. That is absolutely essential. Secondly, people should not get different information from different people. Some people may be on five benefits and if they have to go to five different places to get the necessary information, they are lost by the time they get to the fifth one and they cannot work out how it all fits together. Thirdly, it is important to check the quality of advice and to ensure that there is a proper complaints system. The previous Government established some sort of charter for people who used the benefit advice services, but I warrant that no hon. Member has heard of it because no emphasis was given either to ensure that people knew about it or to enforce it. The need to back good-quality advice with the right training is high on our agenda and we expect to see results shortly.

Social Security Harmonisation

Dr. Michael Clark: What plans she has to move towards the harmonisation of the social security system of the UK with its European partners. [14638]

Mr. Field: The Government have no such plans.

Dr. Clark: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the statement made by the Minister with responsibility for pensions that there is a need to integrate an efficient social protection system throughout Europe? If there are no such plans, what did that mean? If that statement is correct, does it mean that, if pensions were integrated throughout Europe, we might have to forgo our national pension fund, which is probably larger than the rest of the pension funds of Europe put together? Or would it mean that we would have to pay more to assist countries that had not made prudent pension provision, or even both? Would the right hon. Gentleman comment?

Mr. Field: The Government have no plans for harmonisation. That does not mean that we do not consider carefully the evolving social security agenda to discover where the British interest lies and to advance it. We are giving particular attention to three areas. First, we want to ensure that, if pensioners move between countries, they are not put at a greater disadvantage vis-a-vis their occupational pension than they would have been if they remained in their own country. Secondly, we are examining the position of migrant workers to ensure that, as they move between two countries, they do not pay taxation and social security dues in both. Thirdly, we are interested in how the single market rules will operate for the transference of pension capital. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as I used to say when I was in opposition, this country has an enormous advantage in that area.

Child Support Agency

Mrs. Ewing: What is the current average response time by Child Support Agency offices to inquiries for reviews submitted by (a) individuals and (b) hon. Members on behalf of constituents. [14639]

Mr. Keith Bradley: No figures are available on average response times but, in the current year, 86 per cent. of

reviews have been cleared within 13 weeks, and 99 per cent. within 26 weeks. We are not complacent about the state of the Child Support Agency. In June, the Government announced that we were looking closely at all areas of the child support system to ensure that the CSA is consistently fair and efficient. We aim to move forward with our final proposals on the CSA in the first half of next year.

Mrs. Ewing: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he appreciate that Members of Parliament often have to request reviews on behalf of their constituents because the initial assessment is inaccurate? Will he give us the latest figures on the accuracy of first assessments?

Mr. Bradley: I am unable to give the hon. Lady that figure today, but I shall write to her. We are not complacent about the accuracy of initial assessments. We have put extra money into the child support system to ensure a more efficient and effective service on behalf of all our constituents. I assure the hon. Lady that that will continue to be our resolve. We shall examine all aspects of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it works in the way that we expect it to, and in the interests of our constituents.

Mr. Cunliffe: I welcome the Minister's enthusiastic efforts to improve the system that was introduced by the previous Government, which many of us believe is administered incompetently. It is a cock-up. Does he agree with many hon. Members that the Child Support Act 1991 is the most infamous, iniquitous Act that has gone on the statute book since the poll tax legislation? Administrative incompetence, together with the injustice in the system, adds insult to injury for thousands of conscientious parents, and brings financial distress to many second families throughout the country.

Mr. Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend, because I know that he has taken a great interest in these matters throughout the period that the Child Support Agency has been in existence. We are reviewing all aspects of the agency, and we shall publish our plans for it early next year. I hope that the problems that my hon. Friend has identified will be addressed as a result of those proposals.

Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that, when a review has been successfully concluded and it is deemed that an overpayment has been made, that money should be reimbursed in a short time? Does he accept that three months is too long before that money is repaid? Does he agree that overtime should not be included in an assessment, especially when it is seasonal?

Mr. Bradley: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I should point out that a third of absent parents are still not paying, and we must ensure that those payments are made. However, I have noted the hon. Lady's comments and I recognise their force. I assure her that we want an efficient organisation of the Child Support Agency, so that such overpayments are repaid in the time that she suggested.

Pensions

Mr. Corbyn: What assessment she has made of the benefits of calculating future pension increases on the basis of the rise in average earnings. [14640]

Mr. Denham: We are committed to increasing the basic state pension at least in line with prices. Pensioners


can be reassured that, for 1998, we are meeting that commitment. The basic state pension—including its value—the state earnings-related pension scheme and other issues of concern to pensioners are being considered as part of our pensions review, which will report in the first half of next year.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the great achievements of the last Labour Government was the linking of pensions with either prices or earnings, whichever was rising faster? As a result, pensioners enjoyed a much higher standard of living under that Government. The last Tory Government cut the link, thus robbing every pensioner of more than £1,000 a year. Does my hon. Friend accept that a high basic state pension, linked to earnings, is cheap to administer, is fair, and will do a great deal to eliminate the disgraceful levels of poverty that many older people have to endure?

Mr. Denham: As we said in our manifesto, we want all pensioners to share fairly in rising national prosperity. We must take into account all the sources of income that enable pensioners to share in national prosperity—pensions from the state, pensions from non-state sources, benefits, savings and other forms of pensioner income—and we will do that in the review.
The basic state pension is the foundation stone of pension planning for retirement, but it is also important for us to enable people to complement it with a second pension—an occupational, personal or stakeholder pension—to ensure that they can enjoy security in retirement.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the Minister confirm that the review will consider re-establishing the link, either partially or wholly—possibly for all pensioners, or even just for those who start receiving pensions after the review is complete? What will be the range of the review in that context?

Mr. Denham: Our manifesto makes it clear that all aspects of the basic state pension—including its value—will be considered in the review.

Appeals

Mr. Blizzard: What plans she has to ensure that appeals by benefit claimants are dealt with more speedily. [14641]

Mrs. Mahon: If she will make a statement on ways of improving social security appeals. [14645]

Mr. Keith Bradley: We are determined to reduce the current delays and complexities in the appeals system. On 9 July, we introduced the Social Security Bill, which paves the way for the creation of an active, modern social security system. The Bill includes several measures that will enable us to provide a quicker, simpler and more efficient appeals service for customers. The Secretary of State will take personal responsibility for the administration of the appeals system, will set and publish demanding targets to shorten the time that it takes for appeals to be heard, and will report on the results.

Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the social security benefits system

inherited from the last Government is in crisis? Does he further agree that the sheer number of people who depend on benefits and the harshness of the regime introduced by the last Government are resulting in too many appeals, long waits and the clogging up of the independent tribunals service?
In particular, will my hon. Friend examine the disability living allowance? Because of the 32-page all-work test and the frequent consequent reduction in benefits, many disabled people are making appeals, and both they and their carers resent the long wait that they are having to undergo.
Finally, when is the review of the disability living allowance likely to be completed?

Mr. Bradley: The disability review will be completed early next year.
The whole purpose of the Social Security Bill is to streamline the administration of benefits, and to make it simpler and more efficient for customers. The Bill contains provisions that will enable corrections and other changes to be made at an early point in the administration of benefits, so that customers' difficulties can be put right and they need not go to appeal. That is the best way in which to ensure that people receive their entitlement at the point at which they need it. I believe that the Bill will greatly benefit a vast number of claimants.

Mrs. Mahon: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to improving the appeals system. It is indeed slow and inefficient and causes a great deal of distress, not least to the staff who must administer that inherited system. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with staff and their representatives, and how soon will they be reassured and involved in the system?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the concerns that she has expressed on behalf of staff. I share those concerns because, during modernisation of the social security system, there are always anxieties about the way forward, but I assure her that I shall continue to have constructive discussions with trade unions and staff representatives as our plans for streamlining and modernising the social security system unfold.

Means-tested Benefits

Mr. Viggers: What is the comparative administrative cost of distributing (a) means—tested benefits and (b) benefits which are not means-tested. [14642]

Mr. Field: The administrative cost of income-related benefits is 7 per cent. of benefit expenditure. The administrative cost of all other benefits is 2.5 per cent. of benefit expenditure.

Mr. Viggers: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, superficially, means-tested benefits are attractive because, from a Treasury point of view, globally, they cost less money? However, there is a trap within every means-tested benefit as there is no incentive for the individual to escape from that means test. Does he agree that, in the longer term, it would be good to phase out as many means-tested benefits as possible?

Mr. Field: Yes.

Pension Sharing

Mr. Hope: If she will make a statement on the Government's plans for pension sharing. [14643]

Mr. Denham: Pension sharing recognises the contribution that both women and men make to a marriage. The Government are committed to introducing pension sharing for divorcing couples from April 2000. We are working in partnership with the pensions industry, family lawyers and others, and plan to publish a draft Bill for consultation. That is an important step in our programme of modernising the pension system to improve the income of women in retirement.

Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and particularly welcome the announcement that the Government are honouring their commitment, made in opposition, to introduce legislation on pension sharing. Is he aware that many women experience much discrimination with regard to pensions? For example, women are less likely than men to have a good second pension and they are more likely than men to be poor in retirement.

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is correct. Introducing pension sharing is one measure that the Government intend to take to improve the position of women in retirement. The development of stakeholder pensions will enable women who cannot join an employer's occupational scheme to have access to a better value, funded second-tier pension. We are also exploring the possibility of introducing a citizenship pension to enable people, particularly carers—who are most likely to be women—to gain additional pension rights to reflect the fact that they are unable to contribute to a funded pension because of their caring responsibilities.

Child Support Agency

Mr. Kidney: What changes she proposes to make to child maintenance assessments by the Child Support Agency; and over what time scale. [14644]

Mr. Keith Bradley: The Government believe that all children are entitled to the support of both parents, whether or not they live together. The Child Support Agency was established to ensure that absent parents meet and fulfil their responsibilities. Although there is some sign that the agency's performance may have improved

since its early days, there is still a very long way to go before public confidence in it reaches an acceptable level. We are therefore examining all aspects of the agency's work, with a view to ensuring that it provides a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients. As I have already said, we aim to come forward with our proposals on the CSA in the first half of next year.

Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, today, child assessments are much more realistic than some were in the early days of the CSA? Nevertheless, does he agree that disappointment among both parents with care and parents without care is still high, mainly because of the slow speed and inaccuracy of assessments, and that the feeling among parents is that their individual circumstances are not taken into account? I welcome the review, which I hope will result in changes, but they will clearly take some time. Cannot guidance be given now to try to iron out at least some of the major inconsistencies in terms of speed and inaccurate assessments?

Mr. Bradley: Clearly, the change in the form, which was introduced some time ago, is having an impact and is being welcomed by both parents with care and absent parents. I have noted carefully my hon. Friend's comments on the way forward for our review. In the meantime, we continue to work closely with CSA staff and the chief executive to ensure that delays, inaccuracies and inefficiencies are addressed. Work will continue to restore public confidence in the CSA.

Mr. Robathan: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems faced by the CSA is that incorrect information is given to it, particularly by absent parents? That information is often fraudulent to avoid proper payment. Three parents with care came to see me at the weekend about exactly that. When he is reviewing the agency, will the Minister consider creating some offence whereby avoiding payment by a fraudulent statement is prosecutable?

Mr. Bradley: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. No one would condone misinformation being supplied to the Child Support Agency or the taking into account of fraudulent acts during the process. I shall look carefully at the way in which the process operates and shall ensure that, when we present our proposals for reform, the interests of the child, which are the most important part of the CSA's work, and the method of ensuring that maintenance is paid for the benefit of the child are properly taken into account.

Points of Order

Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to raise an important matter relating to my constituency, of which I have given you notice. It is the report on the front page of the business section of The Observer, which suggests that a decision has been reached that P and O and Stena should be allowed to merge.
I am surprised, first, that not only the decision but detailed considerations should be announced in a Sunday newspaper, when I and other hon. Members, including Labour Members, have shown a substantial interest in the matter since May and have asked to be kept informed of details. Is this not discourtesy to the House, if indeed it is a Government leak? Would it be possible to arrange for a statement by other methods, so that hon. Members with constituency interests could discuss this matter?

Madam Speaker: The House knows how much I deprecate such matters appearing in newspapers. I know that the hon. Gentleman has shown great interest in the matter, because he has questions on the Order Paper.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he tries to frame a parliamentary question seeking information about why and how this information appeared. That would be helpful to me in what I am regularly trying to do.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to the Prime Minister's interview yesterday in "On the Record" with John Humphrys, is it not now essential that he should be required to go on the record with a statement to the House on the whole saga of "fags for favours", so that the reality can be clarified? I seek your maternal guidance on this important matter. The whole saga of concealment and the errors of judgment by the Prime Minister should be debated and exposed in the House, the Parliament of the people.

Madam Speaker: The Opposition have days on which they can put down a motion, and if they wish they can do

so on this subject. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if he seeks to catch my eye on Wednesday when the Prime Minister is here for half an hour answering questions, he might be lucky: who knows?

Mr. Tim Collins: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: There is nothing further to that point of order. I have dealt with it.

Mr. Peter Viggers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is similar to the one raised about the prospective merger of P and O and Stena. About two weeks ago, I was told by local journalists that the coastguard station in my constituency was to be closed. Therefore, I tabled a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who passed it to the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency. The latter wrote me a long letter spelling out what the coastguard service was in the south of England. That did not answer my question, so I wrote to the chief executive of the agency asking him to confirm that the coastguard service would remain as originally stated.
I hear today that the coastguard station in my constituency is to be closed, despite the fact that I tabled questions two weeks ago trying to elicit information. That is a poor way for the Government to behave. Can you give me any guidance on how I can ensure that it does not happen again?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member. I cannot give guidance on how to prevent it from happening again, but I deprecate the fact that the information with which he has been supplied is not as accurate as it might be.
I will look favourably on an application for an Adjournment debate if the hon. Gentleman would like to seek one. He could then find out precisely where the information came from and about the inaccurate information with which he has been supplied. I select the subjects for Adjournment debates on Thursday evenings, and I shall look favourably on an application from the hon. Gentleman.

Opposition Day

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Public Services

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That this House believes that Britain's key public services, in particular education, health and social care, have been underfunded and undermined by 18 years of Conservative rule; condemns the Government for continuing Conservative spending plans and council-capping and for spending less in the present year in real terms on education, health and social services; expresses alarm at the effect of the last budget inflation forecast, which will reduce the real value of government spending plans for next year by around £5.3 billion; believes that the cumulative effects of government policies will be larger classes, longer waiting times, and less care and treatment, when what the public services need is to be rescued from the vicious circle of cost shunting and crisis management, with sufficient resources to allow the raising of quality and standards for all; and calls on the Government urgently to put the necessary resources into public services, by such measures as switching monies from other departments and by limited but targeted and earmarked increases in taxation.
It is a great pleasure to move this motion in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. When my party last had the choice of subject for debate, it was in a Parliament where 20 Liberal Democrats had been returned at the previous general election. This is our first opportunity to choose the subject following May's general election, when 46 Liberal Democrats were returned. We may not be Her Majesty's official Opposition, but we have made our position clear—we are the people's constructive opposition, and the people's credible opposition.
On an issue such as public services and their financing, the Conservative party will never be a credible opposition, which is why we are not only proud to have tabled the motion, but determined to hold the Government to account. After six months, they show much verbal commitment to public services, but less action and finance to back up those services.
Over the past six months, the Government have tried to reconcile two different commitments to the electorate. They came to power on the back of a clearly underfunded set of public services. We acknowledge that, and we share their concern about it.
However, from 1 May it was the Government's responsibility to rescue Britain from that position. Instead, sadly, they have held to—at least in theory—the spending programme to which the Conservative Government had committed the country. The Government have also held to their commitment that they would not raise income tax.
The result is that this year and next year, public services will be not only less well funded than they should be, but this year they will be less well funded than even the Tories had planned them to be, and next year they will be less well funded than they would have to be if there are not to be huge difficulties in health, education, social care, police, the fire service and so on.
Three sorts of spending restrictions are hampering the Government in each day of their new Administration. First, there are the planned Tory spending cuts, under which budgets are planned to fall in real terms—for example, local authority budgets this year and next year, and the budgets for further and higher education. Secondly, there are real cuts to the original planned education and health budgets this year, because the Government have had to contend with higher inflation, but have not made up for the money lost, because inflation has risen from an estimated 2 per cent. to 2.8 per cent. Thirdly, there will be real cuts to almost every other planned budget across public services.
We know that the Tories left a very tight ship—so tight that the outgoing Chancellor of the Exchequer described his spending plans as "for the birds". The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) knew that it was impossible to sustain that level of public spending. Of course, there were lots of things that he did not predict or plan for, such as the issue that has been attracting growing interest in the House: how we will find the money to put computers in order in time for the millennium, at an estimated cost of £7 million. That is not yet provided for, and it will make things especially difficult for the health service and the Ministry of Defence.
The Chancellor had two opportunities to do something, and he has fluffed both of them. In July's Budget, he could have improved the situation for public services, but he left it worse. Independent work by the Library's statisticians and economists and the Budget's inflation forecast have shown that, next year, there will be £5.3 billion less for public services. That will be a real cut of £5.3 billion. Later in the debate, other Liberal Democrat Members and I will address the practical issues of the cut, but I say now that an enormous burden will be placed on public services in every constituency if those clearly announced reductions are not dealt with.
Tomorrow, when Health Ministers announce the new health service waiting lists, it will not be surprising if they rise considerably again. It will not be surprising, either, if reports show that secondary school class sizes continue to rise. We will also hear reports that police forces will have fewer officers on the beat. We know also that, not only this winter but next spring and next year, not only in the capital city but elsewhere, the fire service and, even more crucially, social services—about which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will catch your eye, Madam Speaker—will be under exceptional difficulty.
Yesterday, I travelled from Southwark and Bermondsey to Winchester. The two constituencies have three things in common. First, they both have cathedrals. Secondly, last month, they both had a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. Thirdly, next month, they will both have a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. Otherwise, as hon. Members will be well aware, they are very different places. Nevertheless, they share some common problems.
The Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority, for example, is hugely in deficit; and Winchester's local health trust says that, next year, it too will be in deficit, by £500,000. In inner London, education budgets are being reduced; in apparently affluent Hampshire, the local authority is under similar pressures in meeting education demands.
The health service is in the worst position it has been in since the beginning of the decade. The figures published last week show that, when the Government took office, 97 per cent. of England's health authorities were in deficit—to the tune of £238 million—and that 32 per cent. of health trusts were in deficit, by £51 million. There has never been a worse legacy in health service funding. A more significant response, in commitment and funding, has never been needed more.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. John Bercow: I am rather surprised by the sheer richness of the hon. Gentleman's reference to Hampshire. Will he take this opportunity to confirm the truth of the following statements? When in control of Hampshire county council, the Liberal party had a planned underspend on education for 1997–98. Since the Conservatives took over control of that county council, they have increased this year's planned expenditure by £2.8 million.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will deal with those points in more detail— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will deal with the points, but my hon. Friend will deal with them in more detail—if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) really wants the House to concentrate on education funding.
In Hampshire, we overspent the assessment. The hon. Gentlemen well knows that, in education, local authorities have only two choices left to them: rob Peter to pay Paul, by taking money from social services and spending it on education; or take on the Government—whether the previous Government or this Government—and try to have capping limits lifted. The previous Government would not agree to that, and nor will the new Government. The reality is that if money cannot be raised locally, it has to be provided centrally. If the outgoing Tory Government and the incoming Labour Government will not provide the funds, they have to carry the can.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. Gentleman mentioned underfunding in the health service. Will he concede that, in my area, the East Lancashire health authority received an extra £600,000 this financial year, and will receive £12.24 million next year, a real-terms increase higher than any increase over the past five years?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to take me on over the health service too, because I am going to make a specific allegation. I am afraid that, when Ministers announced the allocation to the health service in England about two weeks ago—there were many planted oral questions to the Prime Minister about it last week—they did not tell the whole story.

Mr. Phil Willis: Not for the first time.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed. It is an old trick. Tory Secretaries of State for Health did the same, and news management is now becoming a regular feature of the new Government, too.

Mr. Prentice: Are the figures wrong?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, they are wrong, and I shall explain why.
Ministers announced that the allocations to local health authorities in England were the highest for five years. That is true: they were 0.01 per cent. higher than last year. It is true, but not by much—an increased figure only just squeaked home.
The health service in England gets money in two ways: the initial funding comes from the local health authority, and additional moneys are either bid for or distributed centrally. In the past, the two sums were added together, but the Government did not do that this time.
Why not? It was for the obvious reason that, if the two sums are added together, it is clear that the allocation for the health service in England next year represents not the highest percentage real growth increase for five years but the lowest percentage growth for five years. The increase is 1.7 per cent., the lowest for five years, while, in their 18 years in office, the Tories managed an average of more than 3 per cent.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) may say that health authorities have more money, but if he believes that the average 1.7 per cent extra across the country will meet the demands of the health service, he has another think coming. No one else believes that it will meet the needs of the health service in the north-west, the south-east or anywhere in between.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: What does the hon. Gentleman think about the extra £1.6 million that Calderdale and Kirklees health authority received to help us through the winter? Is that not real money? Will it not translate into more beds to help us meet the winter crisis? Have I been lied to by the chief executive, the nurses and the local unions, who have assured me that they will not—thank goodness—have to put people on trolleys this year?

Mr. Hughes: I respect the hon. Lady for her commitment to and understanding of the health service. She has touched on a good point. So that the House understands, I should explain that the Government realised that they did not want people on trolleys this year—

Mrs. Mahon: Is that not a good thing?

Mr. Hughes: Of course it is a good thing. Originally, the Government said that they would not transfer money from one Department to another. Indeed, the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that it could not be done, but in September the Chancellor did it.
The Government allocated £269 million extra, which was raided from money allocated to defence and trade and industry, to the health service this year. That is correct. It will stop people being put on trolleys, which I welcome, but it will not be used to stop waiting lists rising, nor will it deal with the hidden crisis in the health service. It will do nothing to speed up cataract operations.
It will not allow the people needing hip replacements to be operated on. If the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) believes that that amount of money will rescue the health service in Calderdale, Winchester, Beckenham or anywhere else, she is wrong.

Mr. Andy King: It is a start.

Mr. Paul Burstow: A false start.

Mr. Hughes: As my hon. Friend says, it is a false start.
Even with the extra allocation, the health service will, because of inflation, get less this year from this Government than it was planned to receive from the previous Government.
Is the hon. Member for Halifax, as a socialist, pleased that her Government are delivering less to the health service than the Tories had planned? If she is not, I suggest that she takes it up with her Front-Bench colleagues. The Tories would have spent £160 million more this year than the Government. I am embarrassed for the hon. Lady, but I am troubled not by the embarrassment of hon. Members, but by the thought of those people outside who will be affected directly.
The health service has lost £430 million because of inflation. Over the Government's first two years, there will barely be an increase for the health service over what the Tories planned. When the hon. Member for Halifax and her hon. Friends were in opposition in years gone by, they said how greatly underfunded the health service was, but the Labour Government have provided the health service with the lowest increase for five years.
Patients waiting for operations, doctors and nurses will not be satisfied. [HON. MEMBERS: "What would you do?"] I am being asked by Government Front Benchers what we would have done. We made it clear that the health service needed at least £0.5 billion this year, and the same amount next year, of real, new money. Even if we accept what the Government have said—that that money should not come from income tax—there are other ways in which we could raise it.
We could take some money from tobacco tax—5p on a packet of 20 would raise £200 million. Increasing employers' national insurance contributions could raise about £350 million a year of additional money. When the Government abolished tax relief on private medical insurance—raising £120 million-they could have put that money into the health service. Because of inflation, tax revenues have gone up by £350 million this year, and will increase by £750 million over two years—money that could have gone into the health service. That could have provided £1 billion of real money.
The reality is that no new, real growth has been provided. The Government are condemning the people who depend on the health service to struggling, to waiting, in many cases to growing more ill, and, in some cases, potentially to dying.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What has happened to the extra 1p on income tax proposed by the Liberal Democrats "if necessary"? How would that 1p extra pay for all the hon. Gentleman wants in the health service and education, as well as pensions, student grants and tuition

fees? Is not the magic penny, as I call it, one of the most dishonest pieces of political propaganda that we have seen in a long time?

Mr. Hughes: I will not misrepresent the Labour party's position, and I ask the hon. Gentleman not to misrepresent ours. We went into the general election saying clearly that the education service needed at least £2 billion more. That was equivalent to 1p on income tax, and all that money would have gone to education—not health. We made it clear that our priority was schools, and that we did not think that students should pay tuition fees. Unlike the hon. Gentleman's party, we have not changed our position.
We made commitments to the health service—additional commitments funded through tobacco tax and national insurance. If the Government have been trapped by their own dogma into saying that there will be no income tax increases, if they believe that people earning £17 million a year should not pay a higher rate of tax, and if socialists, Labour party members, Labour Back Benchers and Labour Ministers think that it is justifiable for nobody to pay any more, they will have to look for other taxes.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No.
We say that the tax revenues are there, that there are fair and reasonable taxes, and that the public services will not survive without them.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Hughes: No.
I have two last points to make on the health service. There are six health authorities that, even with the money allocated around the country a couple of weeks ago, will still be in deficit this year—some by as much as £8 million. Those include areas such as Surrey, part of which is represented by a former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley).
It is no good believing that the Government will straightforwardly say that they made only one pledge on the health service—one early pledge, that they would cut waiting lists, but—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Over five years.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that that was over five years. If an early pledge is over five years, the English language is understood differently in Bolsover than in the rest of the country.

Mr. Skinner: As one of those who went into the Lobby when the Liberals voted against the cut in income tax, I can speak from a position of authority; but I find it odd that we are hearing this spin-doctoring statement today, even though spin doctoring was invented by Liberal "Focus" leaflets.
On that night, I voted against the Tory Government along with the Liberals, but later on that night, there were several other Budget propositions—the airport tax and so
on—and, oddly enough, the Liberals went into the Lobby and spent the money, or at least a lot of it. Yet now they have the cheek to tell us that they would spend it on health, education, student fees and all the rest of it. At least when I voted against the income tax cut, I was not daft enough to go into the Lobby later and spend it—I wanted money spent on health and education, but the Liberals spent it that night.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is raising an old argument in trying to deal with two embarrassments afflicting him and his colleagues. The first embarrassment is that the Liberal Democrats had a costed manifesto, while Labour did not—the figures did not add up. One cannot defend public services or
save the NHS in 14 days
without raising the money to do it. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do, and his voters know that as well as ours.
The second embarrassment, which the hon. Member for Bolsover cannot cover, is that those on his Front Bench spend more time on news management than on health service management. They manage the figures on allocations to health authorities, and they will try to manage tomorrow's figures on the waiting lists so as to pretend that they are not going up as much as they would have done, but actually have come down a bit—although that is only because of summer. Their attempt at news management has not worked well over the past few weeks over tobacco, and it is not working well on anything else in the health service.

Mr. Skinner: Your "Focus" leaflets are full of lies.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman and the rest of his colleagues know that the public services are funded from taxation raised by Government and spent by Government. Until his Government understand that they cannot make promises without asking people fairly to pay, it will be his side that is in increasing difficulty, not ours. We said the same thing before the election, during the election and after the election, and, in the by-elections being fought this week, people will know that that is the truth.
The Labour amendment asks us to be grateful for the money that has gone into these services—of course we are grateful for it. It is right to put extra money into the health service; but the much trumpeted £1.5 billion amounts, after inflation, to only £400 million. For the person waiting for an operation, that means a much longer wait—if he ever gets to have one at all. The capital building programme under Labour is the same as it was under the Tories: there has been no increase in public money at all.
It amounts to £1.3 billion this year of public money—

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: I am talking about public money for which the Government are responsible. If the Minister of State is saying that public money does not count, he had better come clean and tell the public that they will henceforth be paying out private money for the NHS, for education, and for social services.
My party stands for public investment in public services. We do not believe it right to tell people that, if they cannot pay for something, they must go without.
As for the Conservative amendment, the Conservatives say that my party cannot hold the Government to account, because we are in effect in a coalition with them. The Conservative amendment is notable for the absence of a single word about health. I wonder whether the voters of Winchester will be interested in that; given the candidate there, it might indeed be wiser to say nothing. Nor is there a word in the amendment about social services.
We are willing to engage in partnership politics. Indeed, we were willing to engage in that when the Conservatives were in office, on issues such as Ireland, Europe and the middle east.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Hard choices.

Mr. Hughes: We are quite willing to make hard choices, and we have trooped through the Lobbies in the past when hard choices had to be made. We are happy to engage in partnership politics when it comes to cleaning up politics, dealing with sleaze, recording donations and so on.
We do not, however, want partnership politics when the Government go in to the election saying that they will ban tobacco advertising, when they then say that they will ban tobacco sponsorship, and when they then suddenly take formula one off the agenda. As I have told the Secretary of State, there can be partnership politics for the future of the NHS. We want it to be secure beyond party politics; but we will be merciless in our attacks on the Government when they claim to want to save the NHS, but do not come up with the goods to enable them to do so.
We are in favour of partnership politics when it comes to constitutional reform, but we will be very determined on issues such as fair voting, to ensure that Labour does not perpetuate a con. If we are to have reform, it must result in a fair, not a rigged, system.
The Tories ask people to look at the Liberal Democrats' record in local government. We are proud of that record. That is why our colleagues in councils throughout the country win awards as the most popular local authorities, and gain satisfaction ratings of 80, 85 and even 89 per cent. That is why we are now the second party in local government, having overtaken the Tories. We are willing to go back to the electorate, and fight for our local services.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose

Mr. Hughes: I will not give way. We are not involved in simplistic calls for higher taxation. We believe in fair taxation and sufficient taxation. When there is a crisis in the public services, we believe that it needs a crisis response. The public services in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—ask any councillor or employee in the public service—are clearly under threat.
New Labour promised much, but is not delivering. We do not trust the rhetoric: we look at the figures and the facts. Public services are the common bloodstream of our people—they keep the heart of the nation beating. They


are the very activities that preserve the common wealth. Without public services, there can be no private success. Unlike some people in the House, therefore, we do not believe that there is no such thing as society. We believe that there is such a thing, and that it is held together by decent, properly funded public services.
We therefore say to the Government, "You are on trial. So far, you have let the people down. So far, you have promised much but delivered less. So far, you have asked the people to believe you, but you have not delivered the goods."
The Tories are incredible. The Labour party is rapidly becoming less credible. We say to the people in Beckenham, Winchester and every constituency in the country, "If you want people to fight for the public services and argue for the money to be put in them, we are here to do that, and we will hold the Government to account today and every day."

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the extra £1.5 billion the new Government has made available to the National Health Service since taking office; notes that this is more than the Liberal Democrats promised in their Election Manifesto; further welcomes the £100 million shifted this year out of NHS red tape and into frontline patient care, including £10 million for breast cancer treatment and £5 million for children's intensive care; further welcomes the £1.3 billion hospital building programme announced since the election; welcomes the £2.3 billion extra over Conservative spending plans announced in the Budget for education, including £1.3 billion to tackle the backlog of repairs in schools and to bring further improvements for education in the future; further welcomes the public/private partnership approach adopted in education which will increase that sum further to £2 billion by 2002; welcomes the start that has been made on achieving the Government's pledge to reduce infant class sizes and to phase out the assisted places scheme; welcomes the enormous strides that have begun in improving standards in schools; and congratulates the Government on the commitment that has been thus shown to the public services, in particular in education, health and social services.".
The problem with the motion moved by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats is that it is plain wrong. It says that the Government will spend less on the national health service than did their predecessor. That is untrue. This year, we have found an extra £300 million to help with the winter pressures.

Mr. Mike Hancock: It is not in real terms.

Mr. Dobson: We hear a cry from the Liberal Democrat Benches, "It is not real money." I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the doctors think it is real money, the nurses think it is real money, and it will be a real benefit to—

Mr. Hancock: The spin doctors.

Mr. Dobson: Not the spin doctors—the doctors and nurses working in hospitals. They welcomed that announcement because they have a bit of common sense, which is more than can be said for many Liberal Democrat Members.
We are finding an extra £10 million to treat breast cancer this year. That is real money, bringing real benefit to women suffering from breast cancer. We are finding an extra £5 million for children's intensive care. That will bring real benefit to real children who need children's intensive care.
Next year, we are finding an extra £1.2 billion—£1,200 million—for the national health service. On top of that, with the agreement of the Chancellor, we can keep any money that we save on prescription fraud and any money that we save on the preposterous spending on insurance that was introduced under the Tory system. We shall be able to keep all the money that we raise under the Road Traffic Act 1988 when we have changed the law so that we get in the money that was supposed to be collected over the years.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has invented a new way of measuring the money that goes to the health service—the NHS current account. That is not a good measure of what gets to hospitals, because that figure, NHS current, includes the running costs of the Department of Health, including my civil servants, and that certainly has not increased, because we have cut spending on the Department's running costs by 2.7 per cent. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a good cut.
The hon. Gentleman should also know that that budget, NHS current, includes family health services, the stuff people get when they visit the general practitioner's surgery, and we have increased that, not by 1.9 per cent., but by 4.7 per cent. That is money going where people want it—into primary care, which is what they receive when they visit their doctor or the practice nurse.
It is not true that the increase in that current account is the smallest for five years. Our increase was the same as last year and it is higher than that in the previous year, even on the measure that the Liberal Democrats have chosen. Then they shift to saying that the growth is less than an average of 3.1 per cent. That is not true: it has not been 3.1 per cent. in the past five years, but has averaged 1.7 per cent. during the past five years.
The Liberal Democrats are asking the House to believe that the extra money that we have provided for the national health service will not go as far as the smaller sum that the Tories provided. That may make statistical sense to a statistician, but it makes none to a human being.
The Liberal Democrats are comparing the Tories' November 1996 Budget, using the 2 per cent. gross domestic product deflator, with our July 1997 Budget, using the honest 2.75 per cent. GDP deflator. They are therefore not comparing like with like, but are giving the Tory Budget the benefit of 2 per cent. deflation and judging us against 2.75 per cent. They must apply one deflator or the other.
Let me explain. To meet the cost of the Tory Government's plan in 1998–99, taking account of the new, higher, honest deflator would have cost £258 million. That amounts to just 14 per cent. of our planned increase of £1.8 billion for the national health service next year. In July, Labour's Budget gave the NHS in England £1 billion extra, an increase of 2.35 per cent. in real terms using the tougher deflator of 2.75 per cent. The Tories' November Budget allocated £33.5 billion for 1998–99 at 1996–97 prices. Now the health budget will be almost £34.5 billion, an increase of £1 billion.
To put it another way, if we had applied the Tories' 2 per cent. deflator, that would have resulted in an increase of just 0.25 per cent. next year. Applying the 2 per cent. deflator to our plans would have resulted in a 3 per cent. increase next year. Applying the realistic deflator of 2.7 per cent. to the Tories' plans would have resulted next year in a cut of 0.5 per cent., and applying a more realistic deflator to our plans produces a genuine real-terms increase of 2.35 per cent. That is what is happening, and it will be real money. It will go to real doctors, nurses and hospitals, and will bring real benefits.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that, even if the Secretary of State does not. Let me put two simple questions to him. First, should the Government be working on the inflation figure of 2.8 per cent.? If so, why do they not make up for inflation? Secondly, does the Secretary of State accept the Library figures, which show that next year's total spend—allocations and current—on the health service in England will result in the lowest real growth for five years?

Mr. Dobson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is no. On his first question, we shall spend more next year than the Tories intended to spend—a substantial real-terms increase of 2.35 per cent. I should have thought that Liberal Democrat Members would have noticed that their constituents have done well from the Labour Government's spending decisions on the health service. They should know that, because I generously sent details to hon. Members from all parties.
To help with the winter pressures, areas with Liberal Democrat Members will receive an extra £42 million, which is nearly a million quid a constituency. This year, those areas are receiving an extra £2.25 million for breast cancer and an extra £1.5 million for children's intensive care. I have checked and found that that is more than their entitlement on the basis of the number of Liberal Democrats in the House. They are not getting proportional representation—they are getting more than they are entitled to. Next year, under our plans, Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament will be getting an extra £257 million for their areas. If they do not think that that is real, and if they do not want it, I am sure that there are dozens of hon. Members representing other constituencies who would be more than willing to take it. 
Let me give so me individual examples. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will get an extra £3.9 million this winter, £235,000 extra for breast cancer, £700,000 extra for children's intensive care, and next year £19.8 million extra. He ought to be grateful, but he shows no sign of it. The other leading health spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), is getting £3.3 million extra for this winter, £112,000 for breast cancer, £275,000 for children's intensive care, and £11 million extra next year.

Dr. Evan Harris: rose—

Mr. Dobson: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman saying thank you.

Dr. Harris: May I bring the Secretary of State back to his early pledge on waiting lists, which is what the people

in Oxford, West and Abingdon, who are now waiting up to 15 months for hip operations, want to know about? They are even less interested in the Secretary of State's figures than are we on the Liberal Democrat Benches. When will the Government implement their early pledge to reduce waiting lists by 100,000 as a first step? The answer had better not be, "In five years." That is not early action, and it is not a first step.

Mr. Dobson: I shall deal with waiting lists in a moment.
It is perhaps unfair, on a Liberal Democrat motion, to compare our funding with the previous Government's. After all, it is not a Conservative motion. The Liberal Democrats have put forward their own proposals. They said that they would add £250 million to the £300 million that we put in this year—presumably, the £250 million coming from them would be real, whereas ours was unreal—which would make £550 million. Then they said that they would put in another £550 million next year. That totals £1.1 billion, which the Liberal Democrats say they would put in over a two—year period. We are putting in £1.5 billion, so they are actually proposing a reduction on our spending plans.
The Liberal Democrats are very good at local campaigns, and they have been campaigning in Cornwall, for instance. The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority has proposed closing four cottage hospitals. The Liberal Democrats told the people of Cornwall that that was because the Labour Government were underfunding the health service in Cornwall. That is not true. The chief executive of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority admitted on television that he would try to close those four cottage hospitals, no matter how much money was available.

Mr. Andrew George: rose—

Ms Candy Atherton: rose—

Mr. Dobson: It is not a shortage of funds that threatens those cottage hospitals, but I do not suppose that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) will apologise to the people of Cornwall—that is, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State. Hon. Members seeking to catch the eye of the hon. Member who is speaking must establish whether they are going to be allowed to come in. If they are not, they must sit down.

Mr. Dobson: The Liberal Democrats should apologise for their misleading campaign.
In response to representations that we have received from people all over the country, we have added a new factor to be taken into account in the allocation of funds, to allow for the special problems of rural areas. That will help Cornwall, among others. In the coming year, Cornwall will get an extra £10 million from the Labour Government. That is in the allocations for next year. It is


not some theory—we are getting on with it, but I suppose that it is too much to expect the Liberal Democrats to get up and thank us.

Ms Atherton: rose—

Mr. Andy King: rose—

Mr. Andrew George: rose—

Mr. Dobson: I give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to whom he is giving way?

Mr. Dobson: I give way to the hon. Member for St. Ives.

Mr. George: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Has his Department asked the chief executive of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority whether his alleged words—that he would close those services anyway—were true? In a conversation with me today, he denied that he made that statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority is facing a year-on-year cut of £5 million, which will result in the biggest cuts in the health service that Cornwall has experienced since the inception of the NHS? Does he agree that that is not acceptable, especially in an area that has suffered enough?

Mr. Dobson: Apparently we are now talking about unreal words. I have seen the transcript of the chief executive's comments to Westcountry Television, and he said that he would close the hospitals even if he had enough money to keep them open—or words to that effect. If he did not mean that, Lord knows what he meant to say—but one never knows.

Ms Atherton: I inform my right hon. Friend that, at a meeting with Liberal Democrat Members from Cornwall, the chief executive and the chairman reiterated that they would close the hospitals, regardless of funding. There is much concern about those issues in Cornwall. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a Conservative Government would have allocated only £4 million extra to Cornwall next year, while the new Labour Government will allocate more than £10 million?

Mr. Dobson: I can give my hon. Friend that confirmation. On top of what we have provided by way of extra revenue, we have set in train a large hospital building programme. Some 15 hospitals are promised under the private finance initiative. Work started at Dartford a few weeks ago and—if you will excuse the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the first sod was turned today for the hospital in Carlisle. Schemes are expected to proceed in south Manchester, Hereford, Bromley, Swindon, Worcester, Norfolk and Norwich, Halifax, Durham, Bishop Auckland, Greenwich, south Tees, Wellhouse in Barnet and in south Buckinghamshire. In addition, within the past two weeks we announced two new hospitals in Sheffield and in Reading. However, apparently they do not count: they are not new hospitals, but a figment of the imagination.

Mr. Andy King: I am amazed by some of the comments from Liberal Democrat Members: they clearly

do not speak to hospital staff in their constituencies. Staff have thanked me for the extra allocation to the health service. They have said, "Thank you for helping us this winter. This is the first time in our memory that there has been proper planning for a winter crisis before it happens instead of everyone running around like headless chickens after the event." 
I thank my right hon. Friend for the £1.47 million that Warwickshire health authority will receive this winter. I thank him also for next year's allocation. It is not just a matter of one-off payments: we must sustain our support. A Conservative Government would have given £3.7 million extra next year, but this Government will allocate £8.6 million extra in order to enhance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, he should relate it to his right hon. Friend. He should not make a speech that he hopes to deliver later in the debate.

Mr. Dobson: In order to save time, I shall not comment at length on my hon. Friend's excellent and accurate intervention.

Mrs. Mahon: As my right hon. Friend has said, Halifax is to get a new hospital after 30 years—thanks to this Government. Is he aware that local Liberal Democrats—there are no Liberal Democrats on Halifax council, just a defector from the Tories—have opposed the new hospital root and branch, even though they know that it is in the health interests of the people of Calderdale, Halifax and Calder valley? Those people need that new hospital, but the Liberal Democrats have fought it tooth and nail.

Mr. Dobson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's efforts in that area over the years. She has been joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) in her attempts to ensure that a new hospital, which is desperately needed, is built in Halifax. No hospital was forthcoming, except under the private finance initiative. It is perfectly legitimate for the Liberal Democrats to express doubts about the PFI—which will raise £1.3 billion for hospital building programmes—but it is also legitimate for me to ask: where would the Liberal Democrats get that £1.3 billion to pay for those hospitals?

Mr. Richard Allan: rose—

Mr. Dobson: I give way to the hon. Gentleman with the beard.

Mr. Allan: I am glad to see that some of us still uphold these venerable traditions.
I should like to record my thanks on behalf of the people of Sheffield for the proposal for a women's hospital in Sheffield and for getting on with it. The Government have taken great steps to sort out some of the mess caused by the previous Government's dallying over the PFI, but our gratitude for the capital investment in the proposed Sheffield hospital does not detract from our principal argument about year-on-year revenue funding of the NHS.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman rather spoiled his intervention towards the end.
We have introduced measures to end two-tierism, with its unfairness and inequality. We have started to tackle the problem of assaults on staff. We have switched money from bureaucracy to patient care. We have started to overhaul the breast and cervical cancer screening systems, which have scandalously let women down in some parts of the country. We have opened up the NHS appointments system to every elected Member of the House. We have opened up trust meetings to the public.
We face major problems in the health service. The 1 million people who work so hard in it day in, day out every hour of the working day face problems. We have inherited waiting lists—the highest ever, rising faster than ever before. As I have said, waiting lists are rather like a supertanker. It will take time to slow them down, to stop them, to turn them round, but turn them round we will. Tomorrow I shall announce further measures to tackle waiting lists. They will include a task force in each national health service region to target attention on hospitals with special problems, trying to bring the worst performers up to the standard of the best by getting the best people to give them the best advice. Those measures will draw on local experience and will depend on the expertise and enthusiasm of local professionals. I believe that we shall manage that.
As well as getting on with the practical job of turning round the waiting lists, the regional task forces will provide solid information on which to base sound and achievable targets for future reductions, and those reductions will come about.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I do not know whether the Secretary of State recalls—I certainly do—that, during the general election campaign, Labour opponents such as mine had five little cards, which they kept next to their heart. One said, "Cut waiting lists". It was an absolute pledge. I saw mugs with various pledges on them on sale at the Labour party conference, and "Cut waiting lists" had been replaced by "Treat more patients".
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is straight out of a scene from "Nineteen Eighty-Four"? This is a pledge that the Labour party clearly could not make, but instead of honestly admitting it, it is now trying to change history.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman must be a mug if he is going round trying to find out what is written on mugs at Labour party conferences. The fact is that we promised that we will cut waiting lists, and we will.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dobson: Not any more.
All the measures that I have talked about deal with problems that we inherited. We inherited the problem of winter pressures. We are addressing that. The Under—Secretary of State for Health has been going round the country, ensuring that social service departments and the national health service work together this winter, getting down the Berlin wall between the two services to ensure that people are properly dealt with.
As a result of the very hard work of the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), we shall shortly publish our White Paper on the new national health service, spelling out what we are doing—not just to end the unfairness and bureaucracy of the competitive system so stupidly introduced by the Conservatives. We shall go much further than that. We are committed to raising the quality, reliability and fairness of the national health service; spreading best practice, clinical and managerial, in partnership with the staff, who are dedicated to quality, reliability and fairness. We shall ensure, with their help and in partnership with them, that we enter the new century with a modern and dependable health service that will provide the best services for all, that is the best for all. We shall ensure quality and equality. That is the basis on which the Labour party founded the national health service, and it is the basis on which we shall renew it.

Mr. Norman Baker: While we are talking about the origins of the NHS, I should just like to mention that Beveridge was a Liberal.
The Secretary of State has spoken about his inheritance from the Conservatives—the mess in which they left the national health service—and the fact that the NHS is in crisis. We agree about that, so, in those circumstances, why has he decided that the budget that the Conservatives left is suitable for the new Government? The spending targets that have been identified by the Chancellor are those which the Conservatives put in place before the election. Given the crisis in the national health service, why has it been deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State and the Government to keep to the previous Government's budget levels?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I try to regularise matters? First, that intervention was far too long and, secondly, the Secretary of State surprised the hon. Gentleman and surprised the Chair by finishing and sitting down, but perhaps he might care to respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Dobson: I would do anything to help whoever is in the Chair—I may be dependent on your good will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at some time in the future. —
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) made the same point, admittedly more briefly and cogently, as his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, and I offer the same reply. We have found £300 million extra for this winter and £1.2 billion extra for next winter. That is not what the Tories were going to spend—it is an awful lot more.

Mrs. Angela Browning: The speech of the Secretary of State was such fun.
Two weeks ago, I took part in a television debate with the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, whom I am pleased to see in his place this afternoon. He invited the audience to take note of the influence that his party has had on the Labour Government since 1 May. It therefore comes as no surprise that, having formed an alliance with the Labour Government, marked by the announcement on 23 July this year of the formation of a joint Cabinet Committee, Liberal Democrats in Parliament are rightly seeking influence with the Government.
Last year, on "Breakfast with Frost", the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), when asked whether his party would join a formal coalition, said:
Of course. If the mathematics said that, if the policies were agreed between us, if they were putting into practice the things that we believe in, that's a possibility.
Of course, they have done just that. Yesterday—

Mr. Bob Russell: Where is my card?

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman has just heard about the pay-off from the Secretary of State, who spoke about how many of his hon. Friends are mentioned in dispatches and receiving preferential treatment in the health service.

Mr. John Burnett: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: I will give way in a moment. 
Yesterday the leader of the Liberal Democrats appeared again on "Breakfast with Frost", as he does quite regularly, and was asked specifically about his coalition with the Labour Government. This time, the right hon. Gentleman peered into the middle distance, squinted his eyes and quoted from Kipling. One was reminded immediately of another line from Kipling which advises:
don't look too good, nor talk too wise
Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman did not look too good because of the obvious embarrassment that he and his party now feel about the close coalition in which they are linked and because they must now answer for their judgment in joining it. 
Given that the Prime Minister was forced to go in front of the television cameras yesterday lunchtime to explain the actions of his Government, and given the saga that has unfolded in the past 10 days, the Liberal Democrats must be getting a little uncomfortable about having joined a coalition with the Labour Government. Despite the impassioned pleas and the representations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), this debate is not about public services, health, education and social services: it is an attempt by Liberal Democrats to put distance between their party and the Labour party now that the Labour honeymoon is clearly over. The union between those two parties is now well and truly consummated, for better or worse, and the Liberal Democrats are stuck with it. That is what has prompted this debate.

Mr. Burnett: May I take the hon. Lady back three or four minutes—before the consummation? Does not part of her constituency fall within the North and East Devon health authority, as does my constituency?

Mrs. Browning: Yes, of course it does. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a point to make, although he is being somewhat obtuse about it. I shall touch on health matters in the North and East Devon area in a moment. 
Let us examine the motion. I shall come to health later, but first I will deal with education. The Liberal Democrats and Labour are natural bedfellows on the subject of education: a consummation "Devoutly to be wish'd", as Shakespeare said. One of the first measures that the
Labour Government introduced after 1 May was the abolition of the assisted places scheme—a policy to which the Liberal Democrats had been pledged for a long time. That was done on the bogus assumption that class sizes would be reduced as a result. Given the Government's lack of preparation prior to being elected, it is clear that they are unlikely to achieve anything like a result in reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds by abolishing the assisted places scheme—a vindicative little policy affecting the least well-off families.

Mr. Andy King: We like it.

Mrs. Browning: That is fine. Of course Labour Members like it: they have to like it, and they would not say anything other than that they like it. It should be a matter of some concern to Liberal Democrat Members who represent rural constituencies, however, that it is clear from the responses given at the Dispatch Box by the Minister for School Standards that the Government have not yet worked out how they will deliver the reduction in rural areas. They will have either to fill up empty places in other schools away from the area of choice and away from where it is convenient for infant children to be transported, especially first thing in the morning, or to increase the number of children in primary school classes above the age of eight. The policy will not work, but there is little difference between the Liberal Democrats and Labour. 
The Liberal Democrats and Labour are also bedfellows on the abolition of grant-maintained schools—or the supposed abolition: we have noted the wording carefully. Liberal Democrats have long opposed and campaigned against grant-maintained schools and it does not worry them that substantial changes to the financing of grant-maintained schools in the future—which is how their demise will be overseen—will have an effect on teachers' jobs in those schools. A Liberal Democrat chair of education recently wrote to The Times Educational Supplement saying that teachers' jobs in grant-maintained schools would go, but that that was a price that he was prepared to pay.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Lady is absolutely right in saying that Liberal Democrats are opposed to grant-maintained status and concerned that the Labour party is not intending to abolish grant-maintained schools totally. Does she admit that under the Conservative Government grant-maintained schools received additional money, over and above that received by local education authority schools? That is the implication of what she has just said.

Mrs. Browning: What the grant-maintained schools were given was the opportunity to manage their own budget rather than county hall managing it for them.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's not surprising implication that he shares the Labour Government's view. He need not be too disappointed, however. The Labour Government may not say in so many words that they intend to abolish grant-maintained schools—it would be difficult for them to do that because too many of their children already attend such schools—but they will change the funding formula so that the schools will no longer have the flexibility to manage such a high proportion of their budget. That will, in effect, bring about


the demise of grant-maintained schools. So the hon. Gentleman need not be too worried: his coalition partners across the Chamber will not let him down in the end. He need not waste too much time over that pledge, for they will undoubtedly fulfil it.
The same applies to grammar schools. Liberal Democrats who are present this afternoon have grammar schools in their constituencies. They must surely know that the parents of children who go to those schools choose to send them there and want the schools to continue. I am looking at the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) because I know that he has an interest in the matter. Liberal Democrats will have to explain to their constituents—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she should be looking at the Chair.

Mrs. Browning: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman wore such an engaging smile that I was momentarily distracted.
As for policies affecting older children, we have seen that the Labour Government intend to introduce tuition fees, thus depriving children from less well-off families of a university education. The Liberal Democrats say that they oppose that. This will be a marvellous test for them to demonstrate clearly the influence that they have around the Cabinet table. In some ways, we Conservatives look to them to exercise that influence, and to show us just how much influence they will bring to bear on behalf of young people seeking higher education.
It has already been said this afternoon that the Liberal Democrats went into the general election with a policy that they have had for some time—to put a penny in the pound on income tax specifically to fund education. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has demonstrated today that raising money through taxation for hypothecated purposes is still a fundamental Liberal Democrat policy. On Tuesday 23 September, The Timesstated—in an article by its chief political correspondent, reporting on the Liberal Democrat party conference in Eastbourne—
The Liberal Democrats are preparing to drop their flagship policy of raising income tax by a penny to boost education spending. The change is seen as an attempt to bring policy in line with Labour's.
We should be most grateful if the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey would refute that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Our position has always been clear. We are talking about the money that is needed to fund the education service. We estimated that it needed at least £2 billion, which is approximately the amount that would be raised by an extra penny in revenue—by putting a penny in the pound on the basic income tax rate. That is the amount that we committed at the last election. If in a year's time we find that we do not need to raise the amount through income tax, we will assess the position and give our answer in a costed budget next year as we did this year.

Mrs. Browning: Having seen quite a lot of Liberal Democrat literature at the last general election, and having

read some of the famous "Focus" leaflets that have already been mentioned, I cannot honestly say that for the general public the clarity of that policy is as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. As his party prides itself on integrity and so forth, when the general public are told, "Just another penny on income tax"—usually the slogan is not even "a penny in the pound" but "Just a penny on income tax", which will apparently cover all that the party claims that it will provide for education—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be a little more honest and explain, as he has today, that this is a moveable feast.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Who wrote this?

Mrs. Browning: I wrote it all myself. Hon. Members should not worry about that.
It is not very honest for the Liberal Democrats to pose—as they have today—as an independent party seeking to distance itself from its coalition partners across the Chamber. They have responsibility, and we see that responsibility in practice in the council chamber. Increasingly, we see that Liberal Democrat councils cost people more. There is no mention of caveats such as that given today by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the need to raise taxation being dependent on an annual budget. Raising taxes at local government level is the Liberal Democrats' stock in trade.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Has the hon. Lady not realised that when the Labour Government introduce Liberal Democrat policies we support them, and that when they do not we oppose them? That is surely the responsible position of a constructive Opposition party.

Mrs. Browning: Given the power that the Liberal Democrats now have at the Cabinet table, they have every opportunity to ensure that the subjects that we are debating today are put on the agenda for the next Cabinet meeting that they attend. We shall be interested to learn what progress is made. The Liberal Democrats are not bound by collective Cabinet responsibility, but the right hon. Member for Yeovil and four of his colleagues sit around the Cabinet table with Labour. I take it from the intervention of the hon. Member for Torbay that we can expect health, education, social services and local government expenditure to be part of the programme of issues that the Liberal Democrats consider important, and on which they can influence their Labour Cabinet colleagues.
In 1996–97, Liberal Democrat-controlled councils charged nearly 30 per cent. more on average in council tax than Conservative-controlled councils. For a band D home, that meant £139 more tax than under the average Conservative council—more than £2.50 a week. The slavish policy whereby they say, "Yes, tax more, tax more for local services," would be a little more intellectually justifiable if in areas controlled by Liberal Democrats and with increased taxes the provision of services was better than, or even comparable with, that of Conservative councils. Up and down the country, however—in Essex, Kent, Waltham Forest, Cambridge, Mid-Suffolk, the Vale of White Horse, Windsor and Maidenhead—Conservative councils have proposed alternative budgets.
My constituency contains two district councils, East Devon and Mid-Devon. Mid-Devon, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, imposes higher taxes and


provides less good services for those who live in my patch. By their actions the Liberal Democrats can be judged. Increasingly, we find that theirs is simply a knee-jerk reaction: they are constantly wringing their hands and constantly begging for more money; yet when they have the authority, the way in which they use the money can be called into question.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: If Liberal Democrat councils are so inefficient and think that the solution to every problem is to raise taxes, why are the Liberal Democrats running so many more councils than the Conservative party, and why has the Conservative approach to local government been in retreat in the United Kingdom for the past 10 years?

Mrs. Browning: That is not what we have found recently. We have found that in local government by-elections Conservatives are winning seats. Council seats that Liberal Democrats considered safe are either being lost or being run extremely close.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will find, now that he is in coalition with Labour, that where there is a partnership between Labour and Liberal Democrats—as well as where the Liberal Democrats control a council themselves—they must expect more disappointments in the future. I hope that the salvation for people will be that in local government by-elections the trend will increase—as it has since 1 May—for Liberal Democrat councillors to be rejected in favour of Conservatives.

Mr. David Heath: The hon. Lady talked about an average among Conservative authorities. As there was only one Conservative local education authority last year, it is not difficult to find an average. Does she agree that when local education authorities such as mine in Somerset wanted to spend more, and to put it into education to produce decent services for our people, we were told no by the Conservative Government and we have been told no by the Labour Government?

Mrs. Browning: Those at the Cabinet table will just have to try harder.

Mr. Bercow: Did my hon. Friend notice the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) flailing in a pitiful fashion when challenged on the subject of Hampshire education finance? He could not deny that £2.8 million more is being spent under a Conservative-controlled county council than was spent when his party was in office. Would it not be good if the Liberal Democrat party were capable of practising partnership politics within its own ranks?

Mrs. Browning: Indeed—and that brings me to the subject of health. The Liberal Democrats want to apply the same expertise to health care as they do in county halls. It is Liberal Democrat policy to put more councillors in control of health authorities—a policy which, on analysis, they have stated is barmy. It fills me with horror that the way in which bureaucracy and

mismanagement lend themselves to Liberal Democrat thinking at county hall should become the way in which our health authorities and health trusts are run.

Dr. Peter Brand: Is it the hon. Lady's experience in May that makes her so distrustful of the democratic process? Should there not be some democratic accountability at local level in the health service?

Mrs. Browning: There are many ways in which local people can make their views known on health matters—for instance, through community health councils. The wider consultation conducted by trusts, with public meetings, is right and proper—local people should have input in that way. However, if the Liberal Democrats' only health policy is that they want more money, as they do in local government—without defining how they would use the extra money or minimise bureaucracy—more money will go simply into administration and less will go in at the sharp end.

Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will have an opportunity to expand on his thesis later.
We have already heard that there is anxiety about the way in which the Labour Government are managing the health service. Many of us share that concern. I listened with interest to the point that even the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey conceded: in real terms—I re-emphasise that—the present Government are not spending what the Conservative Government spent or pledged to spend. Indeed, during our tenure in office we not only increased health service spending in real terms but pledged, again at the last general election, to continue to increase spending in real terms.
That is what has caught the Secretary of State off balance because since 1 May inflation has increased—the interest rate rises from the Bank of England are testimony to that. Figures are bandied about by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, but I repeat to him: it is spending in real terms that matters to patients, because that is what provides additional treatment and underpins existing provision. Where there is a shortfall, as there is this year because of inflation—the figures for next year do not look too encouraging either—it is incumbent on the Secretary of State, if he is to claim that the health service is safe in his hands, to increase funding in real terms.

Mr. Blizzard: Is the hon. Lady aware that this year, North and East Devon health authority has already had £157,000 extra to treat breast cancer, is receiving £1.8 million more to see it through the winter and will receive nearly £9 million more next year, which is £5 million more than was provided for in the Conservative budget?

Mrs. Browning: I am fully appraised of the position in North and East Devon health authority because on Friday I attended a one-day conference in which it participated and where the whole region was discussed, not just that part appertaining to my constituency. The Secretary of


State washes his hands of community hospitals. It is all very well for the Government to say, "We will take the credit and thank you very much when a new one is built, but we do not think that it is our responsibility when one is closed," but that is not responsible government. In my constituency, the community hospitals help to alleviate peak demand in winter when elderly bronchitic patients often need to leave the general hospital and go into their community hospital.

Mr. Blizzard: Is the hon. Lady not grateful for the money?

Mrs. Browning: The hospitals in my constituency are not under threat, but hospitals in other parts of the health region are. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that that has nothing to do with him. If under the health service budget community hospitals in the south-west are being threatened, and no doubt other Members will make their case for their constituents, no one in the south-west will view that as an improvement in health care under this Government.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Lady withhold her judgment of my views of what is happening in Devon and Cornwall until any proposals for hospital closures come to me? After all, the propositions which will eventually have to come to me are being made by the trust and health authority boards, which were appointed by the previous Government.

Mrs. Browning: I am encouraged by that comment as it seems to show that, whatever the decision of the health authority in the west country, the Secretary of State, who has the final say, will take a sympathetic view. I simply thank the Secretary of State if he is tonight pre-empting the health authority's decision. We shall all be grateful, but that was not what he indicated when he mentioned community hospitals in the south-west earlier.

Mr. Dobson: I am sorry to interrupt for the second time. The point that I made was that the threat to close the four community hospitals in Cornwall apparently sprang not from any shortage of funds but from the plans of the health authority and trust boards, which were appointed by the previous Government. The boards apparently want to close the hospitals, whether the money is available or not.

Mrs. Browning: If the Secretary of State is saying that the future of those hospitals is secured, I repeat that Conservative Members will support that. I assume that Liberal Democrat Members whose constituents are personally affected by the matter will make their representations during the debate, but this is not satisfactory when we are given figures about impending problems during the winter months and when we know that community hospitals can help to alleviate those problems, among others.
We know from their track record in local government, at both county and district levels, that Labour and Liberal Democrats do not disagree with one another about much, so this debate is somewhat bogus. The Liberal Democrats have taken fright that somehow they might be seen out there—perception is all these days in politics—to be too closely aligned with the Labour Government and their

difficulties. However, it bears recalling that since 1 May young parents can forget about having a choice for their children in schools because both the Liberal Democrats and Labour agree that parents should be denied that choice. A young person who wishes to go to university should try to be born Scottish or German as it will cost less than being from England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Above all, young persons should try to be born to well-off families; then they will not have to pay so much back.
Elderly people should not bother to make provision for independent health care because people who had independent health care can now simply join the longer waiting lists for knee, hip and cataract operations. The Labour Government, supported by the Liberal Democrats, have ensured that independent health care will not be an option for elderly people.
People in receipt of disability benefit can wait for the knock on the door because the Government are having yet another review to see if that benefit should be taxed or even handed over to local authorities so that socialist Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors can decide on those people's behalf how the benefit is to be spent.
Many Liberal Democrat authorities will want more money from ratepayers and from the Government. However, people should take heart and remember that that should not be a problem because the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties are now, to use their own words in the debate, in partnership.
It is a sad tale when the most star-crossed party in history has to initiate such a debate. The debate is full of serious issues, but its sole purpose is for the benefit of the people of Beckenham and Winchester—two constituencies mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.

Mr. Willis: I will mention them again.

Mrs. Browning: I shall also mention them again to maintain the status quo. The Liberal Democrats have taken fright that the electorates in Winchester and Beckenham will be worried about the coalition from which the Liberal Democrats cannot extricate themselves and in which they have little influence on issues that matter to people. That is what has motivated the debate.
Liberal Democrat romantic dreams, from the Lib-Lab pact of the 1970s to the flirtation with the gang of four and the liaisons dangereuses with Dr. Owen and the SDP, always end in tears. Just when Liberal Democrats thought that Mr. Right had come along they suddenly found that they had thrown in their lot with a Prime Minister and a party who are likely to let them down. If education, health and welfare mean anything to them, they should bring those subjects up at the next Cabinet Committee meeting. We look for a pledge from them that the subjects that they have raised in the debate will be on the agenda for that meeting.
At his party conference in September, the right hon. Member for Yeovil said:
Yes, sometimes it is easier to shout than to talk: to trade insults than to shake hands: to confront than to converse. But if we are to make a new start in Britain, we must tread the more difficult path. If the Prime Minister is serious, as I believe he is, about changing the culture of politics, I will work with him on that. Because that is the way we can make a difference, just as we said we would.
We await that difference with bated breath.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I rise to defend the Labour Government and to congratulate them on what they have achieved in their first few months. We do not live in the Shangri-la that has been described by the Liberal Democrats, in which we can spend two, three, four or five times an amount of money. They want to bid it up and spend a few hundred million here and there. The Government live in the real world and they are determined to create priorities.
We were elected because we said to people that we would deliver on our promises. That is in contrast to the Conservative Government, who undermined and attacked public services to the extent that people decided that they had had enough. Those who oppose the Government propound the myth that they are doing nothing to extend and deliver public services. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats are trying to perpetuate that myth. Instead of discussing what could or may happen, let us look at some of what the Government have done in their first few months. That will dispel the myth.
Yes, we accepted the Tory spending plans for the first two years. That is because they give us the structure and the tightness that are needed for a proper economic structure. In the Government's first few months, £3.5 billion has been put into the welfare-to-work programme to put young people and those who have been unemployed for a long time back to work. That will give them hope and opportunity and enable them to have fulfilling lives. Liberal Democrats voted against the windfall tax which provided that £3.5 billion.
We are told that the Labour Government have done nothing about education. In their first few months, £2.3 billion of additional money is going to education. Teachers and head teachers say that that is not enough and I and everybody else agree, but people also say, "It is nice to know that the Government are starting to address the problems of underfunding that have existed for years." The Opposition say that that money could be doubled, that education could be given £5 billion or £6 billion, but that is not the real world. We have delivered an additional amount that will provide more books and more teachers and will help to reduce class sizes. That is the real world and teachers and head teachers appreciate that.
We have put more money into improving school buildings over the life of the Parliament. We shall hear the cry, with which I agree, that that is not enough, but I am proud to be part of a Government who have started to help kids who still use outside toilets and sit in classrooms with leaking roofs. This year, six months after a Labour Government took power, and following years of neglect, two schools in my constituency are carrying out roof repairs and replacing temporary classrooms. That is not all. Next year, the authority in Nottingham and others hope to spend additional money on school buildings, and every hon. Member will be able to bid for some of that for his constituency. Of course it is not enough, but we are starting to address the problem of 18 years of neglect.
We are told that an additional £300 million for the health service is not enough. I have spoken to the chairman of Nottingham health authority and to the chairmen of other health authorities and to doctors and nurses in the health service. They are pleased that the Government are supplying an additional £300 million this winter because it will help them to tackle some problems.
Of course it is not enough, but it is a start. As we live in the real world, we cannot promise everything to everybody. The Liberal Democrats have told us that that is not real money, but people in Nottingham health authority are delighted to have £2.3 million because it will enable them to start to tackle bed blocking, a problem that faces all trusts and hospitals. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, if we can begin to break down the Berlin wall between health authorities and social services departments, we shall start to move on.
Not only this winter but next year the Government will put extra money into health authorities. The Secretary of State has been in office for only six months and has provided an additional £1 billion to be spent next year. For my health authority in Nottingham, that will mean an extra £14.2 million. People are pleased about that because it will improve the quality of care and patient provision.
A few weeks ago, I visited the breast cancer unit at Nottingham city hospital. It is one of the finest units in the country. Because of the reforms introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the unit has now received £145,000 in additional funding—which has enabled it to reduce waiting times from three to two weeks. That unit and its patients are not complaining about the Government neglecting public services; they are pleased that the Government are trying to deal with the problems. Of course the unit still has problems with accommodation and other provision. Of course it needs more money. However, I am sure that, when the resources are available, that money will be provided.
My last point, which is crucial, is that my right hon. Friend has announced more than £1 billion for new hospital buildings, and he listed the hospitals that will be built. The Liberal Democrats say that they do not want that because it was private money. My constituents want new hospitals and they do not care whether the funding is private or public, provided that it is all part of the national health service and there is access for all. Within six months of the election, my right hon. Friend has managed to unblock funds and release £1 billion for the hospital building programme, yet the Liberal Democrats say that the Government do not care about public services.
One point that has not been mentioned is the Government's decision to allow councils to use capital receipts to provide housing in their areas. That will help to restore the social fabric of the country. In my constituency, which includes most of Gedling borough, that means that £600,000 can be spent on new windows, insulation, repairs and other improvements. Is that the action of a Government who do not care about public services?
The Government have put billions of pounds of additional money into supporting public services because they are determined to repair the damage done by 18 years of Tory government. Instead of making political points, the Liberal Democrats should join us in the real world and the real economy. They should help us in our attempts to improve public services for the benefit of everybody. Together, we can find even more money for schools, hospitals and a range of other public services. The Government will provide additional public services, but within the context of the real world in which we live.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Conservative party does not need to spend too long debating the question of funding because, under


successive Tory Governments, resources for the health service rose from £7.5 billion to £34.5 billion. That is a substantial increase.
It is disappointing that, so far in the debate, there has been a lack of serious consideration of how to manage public services, make them more accountable, achieve value for money, and get the traditional staff in schools and hospitals to work more flexibly to provide better education and better health care.
As it happens, the Conservative Government spent rather more than other countries on our education service, although we do not yet have the standards that we want. The Conservative Government increased by one percentage point the amount of gross domestic product spent on health, at a time when virtually every other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country was reducing its percentage of GDP.

Dr. Brand: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the Conservative Government's GDP expenditure on health still made Britain second from the bottom in the western world?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman—whom I know extremely well—is aware that the figures are not clear because we do not know whether the table takes into account Government spending on health, private sector spending on health or the link with social services and the care of the elderly. His party's debate is about the volume of resources—Liberal Democrats are not interested in anything else. They have effectively demolished the Government's position. I do not need to do that because I do not want to deal only with the volume of resources. I entirely endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Unfortunately, I live in an area where there is a Liberal Democrat council which has raised council tax by 30 per cent. more than the average under the Conservatives. It is spending money on empire building, locality offices and, in particular, consultants' reports when all else fails.
I want to talk about the more serious issues surrounding public services. If the Government cannot take a more serious long-term attitude to public services in their first year of government, it bodes ill for the future. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the national health service, and as we want to increase participation and achievement in education, we must address the serious issues. I take great pride in the role of the citizens charter in making public services more accountable, in providing more information and in making services more sensitive to their users. I worked in the public sector before I entered Parliament, so I know only too well how remote, monolithic and municipal were housing, health and education services in the past. My memory of the Lib-Lab pact is that it was the only time ever that real spending on the health service was cut, so the present regime offers little hope or encouragement.
I enjoy seeing the Secretary of State in his role, especially when he cites Department of Health statistics. I used to be a past master at citing statistics, until I was told that, the more statistics I cited, the less people

believed me. That was disappointing for me, as a social scientist, who had always been told that we had to supply the hard evidence and that comment was not good enough. I congratulate those who have drawn up examples of new hospitals and developments in health care. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the questions that are important to millions of people across the country, especially those 1 million people in the NHS—

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does the right hon. Lady accept that one of the statistics that she might enjoy, but that others in the House would not, is that, when she left office, 97 out of 100 health authorities were running a deficit? Is there not a gap between what she says and what she practises?

Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's statistics as I was Secretary of State for National Heritage when I left office. However, I can tell him that, when I went to the Department of Health, 213,000 people had been on the waiting list for a year. When I left, there were only 30,000. When I went to the Department, the hours worked by junior doctors were very much longer than when I left. The number of deficits fell substantially during my six years at the Department. I can send the hon. Gentleman the figures if he would like them.
I always felt that it was important to deliver a health service managed by objectives. I am concerned that the Secretary of State is already ducking and weaving and changing the objectives, which makes matters difficult for those in the NHS. He said that he would reduce hospital waiting lists, but already the words are being massaged. Like everybody else, I appreciate the additional money that is going to my health authority, but the right hon. Gentleman has created an appalling precedent. In every year until the next general election, the NHS will require its mid-year crisis intervention. I regret to say that the Secretary of State will recreate the old system—in which the more people howled, the more likely there was to be a mid-year bail out. That is not good for long-term health care planning.
I should like to feel that the Secretary of State will take a serious view on priorities. I should like to feel that the objectives that he has set were not simply those fed back by focus groups but those that were necessary for health gains and the long-term well-being of patients and of the British people.
I commend some announcements made by the Secretary of State. Today, I have decided—because, on every occasion on which I have asked him a question, he has subjected me to personal abuse and political invective—to try a different tactic. I will commend some of his actions, to see whether he might be lured into providing answers to some of the questions that I keep asking him.

Mr. Andy King: She likes beards.

Mrs. Bottomley: No, she does not like beards.
I commend the way in which the Secretary of State has continued with prevention. He will probably be aware that, when I introduced "The Health of the Nation" strategy, not every Conservative Member was particularly supportive of the preventive approach, which was thought to be a little nannying. Nevertheless, I think that it is right for the NHS to continue to take prevention seriously.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue also to give priority to mental health—an NHS sphere that is all too easily overlooked. He talks about the popular issues, such as breast cancer and paediatric care, but could he, please, also remember unfashionable health care issues—among which mental illness is perhaps the most important?
I commend the right hon. Gentleman also for floating the idea of a national institute of clinical effectiveness. If we are to have an NHS of the 21st century, examining effectiveness will be enormously important. Effectiveness is at least as important as the volume of resources that are invested in the health service, and necessary health gains will be delivered only if money is spent wisely and well on effective treatments.
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for having talked about being a good employer. He will know that the previous Government joined Opportunity 2000, issued new guidance for ethnic minorities in the NHS, and, in many ways, treated NHS staff well, so that they could better do their job. Such action is a fundamental part of his role, and I have been pleased to hear him making comments on the matter.
I have not been so happy, however, about the right hon. Gentleman's persistent attack on what he calls NHS bureaucrats. Although the Secretary of State has softened his line, the Prime Minister, at last week's Prime Minister's Question Time—as on every occasion when the Prime Minister mentions the NHS—gratuitously attacked NHS managers.
The NHS is a tribal organisation. Doctors have their agenda, nurses have their agenda and professions allied to medicine have their agenda. NHS managers, however, have the difficult task of bringing together the different tribes and of delivering objectives. It would be absolutely deplorable if the Secretary of State and, particularly, the Prime Minister were gratuitously to attack NHS managers on every occasion.
In my new approach of being more emollient—in trying to get answers from the Secretary of State—I commend the Labour party and the Prime Minister for giving a life peerage to Philip Hunt. Philip Hunt, of the national health service confederation, is an outstanding example of an NHS manager. I hope that, in future, he will have great influence.
Although—as I said—I should like to elicit a favourable response from the Secretary of State, it is difficult for me to address my comments in a positive frame of mind when dealing with the matter of the huge number of non-executives who have entered the NHS, adding their skills and leadership to health authorities or trusts. There is despair over the total shambles in the NHS appointments system. A vast number were due to— [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) like to say something?

Mr. Andy King: I hope that we shall soon put right the matter of Tory placepeople, who are still in the health service, doing a great disservice to the health service.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Lady continues her speech, I should like to tell the

hon. Gentleman that he has now seen a demonstration of how easy it is to intervene properly, and not from a sedentary position.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has also intervened as I thought that he might. He might like to read Lord Nolan's report. Lord Nolan said that there was no evidence of widespread political appointments— [Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he was a member of a health authority or trust?

Mr. King: I do wish that the right hon. Lady would come to Rugby, where I live, because it was rife with Tory placepeople. When the trust was established, every single person who was not a Tory placeperson was immediately dismissed from the trust—or proposed trust. The fiasco ended with the trust crumbling, just before the general election. The chairman, chief executive and everyone else resigned, because they had let the people down. The situation was totally unviable.

Mrs. Bottomley: rose—

Mr. King: Shall I continue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already heard my statements on the need for brevity in interventions on an hon. Member who has the Floor. The right hon. Lady has perhaps seen how awkward it can sometimes be to give way.

Mrs. Bottomley: I have learned my lesson, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said, however, I am trying a more emollient style, and I thought that it was only courteous to give way.
I cannot comment on the example given by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth because I do not know of its veracity. I know what Lord Nolan said. He dismissed ideas that there were widespread political appointments, and he not only commended the changes that have been introduced but proposed changes to make the matter even more open.
I can tell both the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and Liberal Democrat Members that people such as Baroness Jay, Baroness Hayman, Baroness Dean, Baroness Neuberger and Baroness Thomas all served in NHS appointments. I do not know whether, under the previous Government, serving on the board of an NHS trust or health authority was a prerequisite to becoming a life peeress. It is extremely important, however, for the Secretary of State urgently to examine the matter of appointments.
The Secretary of State will know that his predecessor, the late Lord Ennals, dismissed about 150 health authority leaders when he came to office. It would be a grave error and misjudgment if the Secretary of State were to behave in a similar manner.
Currently, the despair is that nothing is known about appointments. It was said, for example, that anyone who used private health care would not be appointed to an NHS trust or authority. Labour Members are nodding and showing their approval of such statements. It makes one wonder why Greg Dyke was appointed as the guru of the patients charter. Although I greatly applaud Greg Dyke's activities in the media world, it seems as if the Labour party believes that a media guru is the answer to every


problem. The millennium company has been filled with media gurus, and Greg Dyke—excellent man though he is—has been put in charge of the patients charter. Labour Members have not said much about that appointment.
I urge the Secretary of State to respond at the earliest opportunity to people's concerns over appointments.

Mr. Dobson: Mr. Greg Dyke was appointed because the Government wanted someone to take a fresh look at the matter. Last week, he had a day-long meeting with people who work in the health service, people from community health councils and people who advise on producing better health service publications. So far as I know, all those who turned up—there were about 30 of them—thought that it was a most excellent start to Mr. Dyke's review. We need someone who takes a fresh look. We cannot keep going to the usual suspects, as the previous Government did.

Mrs. Bottomley: If his job is to examine NHS communications and publications, I am sure that he will do a better job than Mr. Joe McCrea. Providing authoritative information for people in the NHS and for those using it is certainly a laudable goal, but it is not one in which the Secretary of State has given people much confidence so far. My point was that, if the use of private care was a disqualification, the Secretary of State must have had great difficulty with the man who was, presumably, imposed on him to take responsibility for the patients charter, excellent man though he is.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The right hon. Lady is in danger of straying from her new emollient style. That would be a tragedy because she was doing so well in praising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for a number of initiatives. Perhaps I might suggest a new emollient track for her. Will she apologise to the House for failing to open up NHS trust boards and for allowing some of the people she appointed to take decisions on NHS matters behind closed doors?

Mrs. Bottomley: Whether NHS trusts should sit in public is a vexed and difficult question because confidential matters need to be debated privately by a small group of people. The danger of trust boards meeting in public is that such meetings could become artificial—controversial or ambiguous information is kept separately, and boards or authorities might have separate meetings to deal with it.
Having said that, in many cases it will essentially be a matter of evolution. My personal view is that the NHS should be as open as possible, subject to the fact that patient material is confidential. Staff issues are often highly sensitive and confidential, too. I do not really take issue with the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on that matter, but I believe that public meetings may lead to a certain artificiality. There are other ways to communicate with the public, and communication should be the aim.

Valerie Davey: Might I suggest that it is the financial aspects of health authority trusts that have been kept most secret? Indeed, it is the competitiveness between the trusts that has caused the difficulty. Surely

the right hon. Lady welcomes the fact that the two-tier system is going to be abolished under the new Labour Government and that that will bring the necessary openness. Such a move will bring to an end the secretiveness of the old trusts.

Mrs. Bottomley: It is a great shame that neither the Secretary of State nor the Liberal Democrat spokesman dealt with precisely that issue. Many commentators have described GP fundholding as the real engine for change and innovation in the NHS. It is important that all GPs should have the opportunity to become fundholders, but the current worry is that the Secretary of State's soundbites give the impression of levelling down, just as with Labour's plans to get rid of assisted places in schools.
One of the challenges in the public services has been to allow diversity and to allow people to improve, innovate and change. Fundholders who were able to spend their money more cautiously and then invest in various services found that there was a virtuous cycle of reward, instead of the vicious cycle of disincentives which was so pervasive in the past. We are all looking forward to hearing from the Secretary of State whether he is introducing change for change's sake in a service that has seen great improvements. Is he suggesting talking shops? There have been leaks in the press about the changes but, as is typical of the Labour party, the right hon. Gentleman does not inform the House. The press are informed first, and the House is told only in the fulness of time. We are all getting used to his doing business that way.

Mr. Dobson: I deplore the leak of an early draft of our White Paper on the NHS, which is why I have ordered a full leak inquiry with the support of the head of the civil service. I hope that the log showing every telephone call made from the Department of Health will be examined in an effort to track down the people responsible. I believe that the House has a right to hear about things first—I believed that in opposition and I believe it now that we are in government.

Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, the Secretary of State has a very different way of doing business from No. 10, but I appreciate his point. Nevertheless, the House wishes to hear his thoughts. It is important to know whether there is simply going to be a talking shop with more layers of bureaucracy and consensus management whereby difficult decisions are never taken.
It is clear that the challenges facing our education service, health service and other public services are linked not only to the volume of resources and the interests of those who work within them, important though they are. Those services have to go through further changes to deliver a better quality of care and research excellence and to meet the needs of an aging population with increasingly high expectations.
So far, we have heard nothing from the Secretary of State, and certainly not from the Liberal Democrats, about how they are going to exercise stewardship of this great national service. Their irresponsibility in opposition in failing seriously to consider the underlying problems is well understood, but people working in the NHS and, indeed, people across the country are becoming extremely impatient waiting for decent answers and more thoughtful comments than we have heard today as to how the 50th


anniversary of the NHS is to be marked. They want to hear about levelling up, not levelling down, and they want courageous long-term decisions to be made.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I have some difficulty with this debate because in my experience there is a considerable gulf between the lectures that we have heard from the Liberal Democrats and what that party does when attempting to get into power and trying to run or gain power in local authorities.
This afternoon, we have heard a panoply of sea-green rectitude and determination to spend more and raise more taxes to pay for public services. One might expect that approach to percolate down to the people running the Liberal Democrat campaigns across the country—we might expect those working in support of their party to be saying the same things, but, unfortunately, that is very far from being so.
Let me take the House to the battlefront of the Winchester by-election. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats could not have failed to see the coincidence in having this debate today and the fact that the by-election is approaching. However, in case they had not noticed, I am happy to point out that coincidence. Their candidate, Mr. Mark Oaten, is allegedly fighting for local health services. A big notice on the front of his campaign headquarters in Winchester says just that. The "Focus" leaflets published on his behalf say, for example:
Give Winchester hospitals the V, million they need
to get them through this winter, and claim that the Government have failed to act.
The Liberal Democrats always bid up any amount of money that is being suggested—we have seen an example of that this afternoon—so one might expect that the Government are providing perhaps £200,000, £300,000 or even £400,000 to get the health services in north and mid-Hampshire through the winter. The actual figure is £1.52 million—three times that which the Liberal Democrat candidate in the Winchester by-election claims is needed. Liberal Democrat literature contains not a word about what the Government are doing in terms of health care in this country.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that there are two issues here. I think that he understands that, but he must not misrepresent the issues. We are talking about the allocation announced two weeks ago for the health authorities, several of which cover Hampshire, and the separate budgets for the trusts. When I was in Winchester yesterday, I heard the chief executive of the trust say on television that the trust was £500,000 short this year. That was the chief executive—not a politician or party candidate.

Dr. Whitehead: The words I mentioned were:
Give Winchester hospitals the £½ million they need
to avoid a crisis this winter. That was written in a Liberal Democrat campaign leaflet, the implication of which was clear—winter payments that were needed were not forthcoming. The Liberal Democrat candidate mentioned that in a public debate, but that is far from the case.
Next year, the North and Mid-Hampshire health authority will receive an increase of £8.566 million, which compares readily with the £3.74 million which would

have been allocated had we stuck with the Conservatives' proposals—proposals which have been endorsed by the Conservative candidate in Winchester, Mr. Gerry Malone. The Liberal Democrats cannot be taken seriously as partners in government, as claimed by the Conservatives, or as a serious Opposition party, as they claim themselves, because of the enormous gulf between what they say here and what they do elsewhere.
I wish to talk about the Liberal Democrats in local government, and there are many examples that one could give. My charge against them is that they misrepresent public services by systematically simplifying them in the eyes of local government electors. A "Focus" leaflet I received recently showed a picture of a Liberal Democrat councillor pointing at a fence. The leaflet said that the councillor had noticed that a fence by the B and Q store had fallen down, and that she had reported it. That was the main thrust of a leaflet about local government services. The public are led to believe that local government services are smaller and more simple than they are in real life.
The local authority next to mine—while putting out similar leaflets—failed to notice that the direct labour organisation had lost £3.5 million and had to be closed down. The authority put out a leaflet saying, "We are sorry that we did not notice, but we are only councillors; it is the fault of the officers."
The House ought to know that there is an airport in the middle of the borough of Eastleigh which—unfortunately for Eastleigh—is called Southampton international airport. The authority put out a leaflet in the north of the borough, demanding that planes take off from the south of the airport. The authority also put out a leaflet in the south of the borough, demanding that planes take off from the north of the airport.
In the country as a whole—although not necessarily in this Chamber—the Liberal Democrats are a franchise party; the McLiberal Democrats, or the Chicken McNuggets party. Whoever happens to have control of the local duplicator gets to decide the local policy of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Willis: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has read every single "Focus" leaflet that we have produced. That goes to show how effective the campaign has been. In terms of franchising, could he say which version of the Labour party the Prime Minister was franchised to when he told the Evening Standard that Labour had no plans to introduce tuition fees?

Dr. Whitehead: The Prime Minister set out a proposal that the Government were considering. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the processes of government mean that one must take decisions on what one finds when one gets into power. The Dearing committee, instituted before the Government took power, made a number of recommendations that the Government took seriously. It is a part of government to take seriously the issues with which one is presented, and that underlines my point. Liberal Democrats in local government often fail to be remotely consistent with the local authority next door or their party in Parliament. They do what the fancy takes them to obtain power.

Mr. Bercow: As I think the House will have recognised, the hon. Gentleman was visibly stumped by


the intervention from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Will he call to mind the specific wording of the statement on 14 April in the Evening Standard—
Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees in higher education"?
Will he acknowledge the U-turn and apologise for it?

Dr. Whitehead: If continuing to speak while being on one's feet is a sign of being "visibly stumped", then I was.
The Government must, of necessity, take decisions in relation to the consistency of a long-term programme in government to make sure the funds add up. In this case, we must make sure that we expand student numbers and overcome the stop-start policies of the previous Government, who marketised higher education and brought all sorts of new students into higher education without providing the funds. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will know, funding per student over the past few years has dropped by 25 per cent.
In panic, the previous Government put a cap on student numbers. The hon. Member for Buckingham is presumably expecting us to reduce student numbers back to the level of a few years ago, when only those from a relatively privileged background could get into higher education. He is no doubt proposing that as a solution to the funding crisis in higher education, rather than attempting to find the money to carry on funding higher education, so that more people—particularly those from less privileged backgrounds—have the opportunity to get the higher education that they deserve.
Our decision is consistent and honourable, and will ensure that a long-term policy of this party—wider access to higher eduction—is maintained. It was a hard decision, but it was consistent with our long-term plans for government, and it will ensure that those plans are carried out.
The charge I am making is that the Liberal Democrats have no such consistency. My difficulty with the debate is that, although the Liberal Democrats bring their policies and principles into this Chamber and offer them to the party in government, they have a sorry record of campaigning on half-truths and smears, which seriously mislead the public at local level. I will not embarrass and burden them with the sorry story of Tower Hamlets, as that would be too painful for them to contemplate. All I would say is that the right thing for the Liberal Democrats to do now is to go back to their constituencies and prepare for consistency.

Mr. Paul Burstow: It will soon be the time of year when many of us take part in the sending and receiving of Christmas cards and gifts. Unfortunately, not everyone welcomes that Christmas mail: up and down the country are people for whom Christmas cheer is sadly lacking.
Who are these people and what makes them regard December with such foreboding? They are local authority treasurers, for it is they who have to translate the spin of local government settlements, both past and present, into the cold reality of local council budgets. It is their job to

be the bearers of bad news for local councillors, for council staff and, above all, for the people who rely on local services.
For the past 18 years, the arrival of the brown envelope from Marsham street or Marsham towers has been greeted in town halls of all persuasions and all political colours with growing despair and anger. For the past 18 years, the Conservatives have turned the screws on local services, forcing local councils to cut, cut and cut again, and denying councils and the communities that elected them the right to take a view about the level of council tax and local services.
The result has been a steady erosion of local services. At the same time, Parliament has shown an incredible ability to pass laws that impose new duties and give powers to local authorities—but although this place wills the ends, it has not always willed the means to allow local authorities to do the job.
The question is, will the Labour Government be any different? Judging by their rhetoric in opposition, there is every reason to expect a much better deal for local services, but will the Government make a difference? Do they trust local government, much of which they control? The answer to both of those questions is no, and I shall explain why.
The Government will not make a difference, because they are sticking to the Tories' spending plans for local government. For many, the news will be bleak: more cuts in local services, and tough choices about which services to protect and which to sacrifice—not so much a case of new Labour as of hard labour.
As for trust, as long as capping remains in place, there can be no trust. Over the past 18 years, the Conservative party has developed a unique relationship with local government: one based on distrust, a belief that Whitehall knows best, and universal rules to stamp out the crimes and misdemeanours of a few high-profile councils. That relationship was blind to the fact that, outside the spotlight, there was and still is much that is good, excellent and innovative in local government. The Conservatives paid the price of that relationship: year after year, the party lost seat after seat and council after council, and now the Conservative party is the third party of local government.
It is time to start undoing the damage done by the Tories; that is why capping must end, and end now. With the cap and Tory spending plans, the Labour Government will be rightly condemned for delivering the very Tory cuts that Labour campaigned against. Next year, even after efficiency savings, local services will be short-changed to the tune of £1.1 billion. That is not the result of local government profligacy, but the cost of Tory neglect.
Let me give some examples: more frail elderly people and fewer NHS beds are increasing demands on social services; the legacy of rising crime requires more police officers to stem the tide; and increasing pupil numbers require more teachers simply to keep class sizes as they are. Those pressures will not go away, but will continue to increase, and failing to invest in those services now is a false economy that will lead to short-term decisions with long-term consequences.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the new Labour


Government have already made available an additional £1.3 billion for education; that they have already taken steps to reduce class sizes in infant schools; that they have already made available more capital receipts to enable more public housing to be developed; and that they have financed that through the windfall tax—a great redistributive tax, which he should welcome?

Mr. Burstow: I am sure that, with her long and distinguished career in local government, the hon. Lady will understand the heartache experienced every year by council leaders when they receive the detailed figures from the Government, and will accept that this year will be no different. The reality is—

Mrs. Jackie Ballard: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Burstow: Let me finish with this intervention before moving on to another.
I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) will accept the Local Government Association's figures, which clearly show that, in order to put the extra money she mentions into education, councils will have to allocate money away from other services—in other words, there will have to be cuts elsewhere.

Mrs. Ballard: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that seven out of 10 social services authorities say that they will have to tighten eligibility criteria for care in the community if the Government continue the Tory spending plans for local authorities?

Mr. Burstow: I do indeed, and that brings me to my next point.
The problems facing social services can be summed up by three Fs: funding, fragmentation and false economy. In funding terms, local authorities are battling against Whitehall. I lay the blame for that not specifically at the Government's door, but at the door of a system which underestimates the actual cost of delivering community care.
This year, the average local authority social services department is spending 9 per cent. more than its standard spending assessment on social services. I sometimes wonder what would happen if every local authority social services department in this country spent down to its SSA—I suspect that the results would be devastating to many people.
Even the extra money the Government have promised to help social services and social work departments this winter seems far from certain to reach its destination. Written answers from Health Ministers suggest that far too many ifs and buts litter the path of funds from the Treasury to front-line care, so I hope that Ministers will offer an assurance this evening that the money will reach its destination and not be used to reduce NHS deficits, of which we know there are many.
Funding is not the only problem—fragmentation also plays a part. First, there is a lack of symmetry between the benefits system and social services. The objectives of the two conflict, to the disadvantage of the vulnerable in our society, and put barriers in the way of greater independence.
Secondly, the interface between health and social care is not clear. The concept of a seamless service between health care and social care is a myth—the reality is better described as pass the parcel, and the price is expressed not only financially, but in terms of the individual's loss of dignity. Thirdly, there is fragmentation in legislation and case law governing the delivery of social care. Judgments like those involving Gloucestershire and Sefton have exposed the stark reality—that community care is not needs-led, but is about resource-led rationing.
It is now time for Parliament to address those issues, which is precisely why I have taken up Jack Ashley's Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill. The House must debate how we can make progress with comprehensive reform of community care law, and the Government should give a wider remit to their royal commission on long-term care, so that we can tackle the issues raised by fragmentation.
Taken together, the problems of funding and fragmentation lead to false economy. Evidence gathered by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux shows how the original objectives of community care have been distorted. Although targeting of support is a clear aim of community care, the reality for many people is that of care rationing—longer waits for assessment and care provision, tightening eligibility criteria and more and increasing charges, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) described 
The consequences represent a false economy for society. As the NACAB report, "Rationing Community Care" states:
Excessive targeting of scarce resources on those in greatest need is leading to inadequate preventative measures in terms of support services in the community for both carers and care users, which may result in more costly institutional remedies becoming necessary".
It is a false economy when one agency manages its budget by simply shunting its costs on to another, either directly or by storing up costs for the future, in education, housing, health and the criminal justice system. Increasingly, that is what is happening in an underfunded public service.
Unless the Government act now, the vicious circle of crisis management will not be broken, and those who put their faith in a Labour Government will be betrayed. We Liberal Democrats have our plans for raising extra resources, but the Government set the fiscal reality in which we must live, and it is in that context that I challenge them to invest a little extra money now, so as to avoid wasting far more later. There is nothing shameful about relaxing Tory spending restrictions, which even their Conservative architect dismissed as "for the birds".
Why will the Government not make use of the extra tax revenues their Budget will generate? The country can afford it, and the Treasury can afford it. Why not redirect some of the £5 billion tax windfall? Why not rechannel some of the £25 billion that will accrue to the Treasury as a result of the abolition of the pension funds tax credit? Why not invest some of these resources to protect local services now? Failure to do so will cost more in the long run.
The public will not thank the Government when they announce a spending bonanza in a few years' time, if the human costs continue to mount now. The social damage has been done, and service infrastructure and assets have been so undermined that they can no longer deliver—

Miss Melanie Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the record of


Cornwall county council, which I understand is Liberal Democrat-controlled, which underspends its SSA on education, and which last year cut its adult education provision by half? How does that compare with the record that he has just been describing? Will he further comment on the fact that 47 per cent. of three and four-year-olds are found places in Liberal Democrat nursery education provision, compared with an average of 70 per cent. in Labour-controlled authorities?
Finally, the hon. Gentleman might like to comment on the record of Devon county council, also Liberal Democrat-controlled, in whose area I heard Bradley Rowe infant school—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not make a speech; she must remember that she is making an intervention and be brief.

Mr. Burstow: I have not been to that primary school, but I can deal with the hon. Lady's other points. Cornwall had a glowing Office for Standards in Education report for the excellence of its education. Secondly, I hope that later this year the hon. Lady will go through the Lobbies with me to vote against capping, because it was capping that led to the cuts that she has described.
Thirdly, head teachers and others in Cornwall accept that it was the LEA in Cornwall—as she rightly says, it is Liberal Democrat-led—which managed to minimise the damage done by the Conservative Government with their capping policies. So I am proud to be associated with the work that Cornwall does. The hon. Lady should take a closer look at the record before intervening next time.
Rather like Ebenezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol", the Government, I hope, have now seen Christmas past: they have rightly condemned Tory spending cuts. Now we are approaching Christmas present, and the Government are about to implement those Tory spending cuts. But there is still Christmas yet to come. Will it be a bleak one, with rundown, impoverished public services; or will the Government, like Scrooge, heed the warning signs, and act now before it is too late?

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: It is certainly true that until 1 May this year all local authorities and public services faced considerable financial pressures. Moreover, morale in many of the public services was falling and standards were under intense pressure. Had this debate taken place before 1 May, many of the points that we have heard Liberal Democrats make today would have been apposite.
The problem with this debate is the Liberal Democrats' failure to recognise the progress that the Government have made in tackling the problems that faced the public services when we came to office. They have wasted their opportunity to look at how we can move the Government's agenda forward to improve education, the health service, social services and policing.
It is worth recounting some of the additional resources that the Government have provided for the public services. They have given an extra £1.3 billion for schools revenue spending this year; and £1.2 billion more for the capital works needed to restore so many of our crumbling

schools. The tragedy is that the Liberal Democrats have failed to deal with the other important education issues that require attention—it is not just a question of resources. We must also consider the standards attained by the education service.
The Liberal Democrats have failed to support the Government's White Paper on standards; nor have they offered any praise for the Government's commitment to additional support for head teachers and to improving the qualifications of teachers and head teachers alike. The Liberal Democrats have offered no commitment to support the Government's work on establishing a general teaching council, nor have they praised the Government's requirement that local education authorities prepare education development plans for schools and their local partners.
I have heard no praise from the Liberal Democrats for our guarantee of a nursery place for every four-year-old, nor for the fact that we have begun the task of providing a place for every three-year-old. They have given us no praise for abolishing the assisted places scheme and using the released resources to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. There has been no praise for the campaign for literacy launched in the summer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

Mr. David Heath: Is the hon. Gentleman worried by the fact that another 55,000 students are set to increase secondary school class sizes next year, at the same time as teachers continue to lose their jobs?

Mr. Thomas: That is precisely why the hon. Gentleman should commend the Government for giving schools an extra £1.3 billion. The mealy-mouthed nature of that and other Liberal Democrat contributions bears testimony to the short-term, narrow-minded focus of their party on Beckenham and Winchester, where they are desperately trying to hold on to their seat. If they continue making interventions like that, I suspect that they will struggle to do so.
The Liberal Democrats have failed to praise the requirement to establish early-years plans and early excellence centres.
When I made my maiden speech, I acknowledged the enormous pressures under which hospital staff and GPs were working. My health authority was one of those in deficit at the end of March this year, and two of the trusts that serve my constituents were also in deficit at that time. The Government have given the NHS in my area more resources; the same applies to the areas of all other hon. Members. This year the NHS will receive an extra £1.2 billion, and the commitment for next year is to real-terms growth in funding for my area's NHS. The Government have allocated another £9 million to Brent and Harrow health authority for next year. Under the spending plans of the previous Government, that would have been only £4 million—so we have doubled the available resources. Yet we hear no praise for the Government's initiative from the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats have also failed to consider the structural problems in the NHS: the internal market and the enormous bureaucracy caused by the previous Government's reforms. Until 1 May we were spending an extra £4 million a day on bureaucracy. That is why I am


surprised that the Liberal Democrats have not welcomed the additional money, found from cutting bureaucracy, for the breast cancer initiative and for children's intensive care. In my area, £97,000 has been found for breast cancer work. That will reduce waiting times for appointments from four weeks to two. It is odd that the Liberal Democrats have not welcomed that initiative.
Globally speaking, we have already saved £100 million in the management costs of the NHS internal market—

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about unnecessary bureaucracy, why did his party vote against the abolition of regional health authorities, which resulted in 1,500 fewer managers?

Mr. Thomas: I am surprised that the right hon. Lady is unwilling to praise this Government's efforts to tackle NHS management costs. One hundred million pounds saved in management costs; the abolition of the eighth wave of GP fundholding and stopping that process in its tracks, saving £20 million—I am surprised that the right hon. Lady has not welcomed those savings. When so many problems in the national health service were caused by the internal market of which the right hon. Lady was an enthusiastic supporter, it is no good for the Conservative party not to praise those savings in bureaucracy.
I draw attention to the £1.4 million that has been made available to Brent and Harrow health authority, to enable it to cope with the additional pressures that winter always brings to the national health service. As a result of that money, extra resources will be put into the discharge services that are provided in our area. Elective surgery will now be maintained over the winter at our local hospital. There will be additional community care placements. Additional resources will go to the very social services department that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was talking about, providing additional community care and additional support for the elderly in our borough.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made a pertinent point—it is a pity that other Liberal Democrat Members did not, because it might have led to a useful debate—about his concern about the fragmentation in health and social care and the artificial division that exists between health and social care boundaries. However, the hon. Gentleman did not praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for his work and the pressure that he has brought to bear to reduce those boundaries further. The hon. Gentleman is being mealy-mouthed in not acknowledging the work that is being done.
Several other measures have been taken to improve public services. In my intervention on the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), I mentioned the welcome opening up of trust board meetings, which will make the national health service more accountable to the patients and users, who demand that openness and who should be entitled to know what is going on. Decisions should not be taken behind closed doors, as in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned the capital receipts initiative and the additional support that will be

provided to housing. That is welcome news for people in my constituency: Harrow has benefited to the tune of about £620,000.

Mr. Sanders: rose—

Mr. Thomas: I have given way a couple of times and I should like to move on.
Considerably more resources will be allocated next year. They will be spent on helping to tackle the problems of an estate represented by Liberal Democrat councillors, who have taken absolutely no action in the past 10 years to try to solve the problems there.
I am one of those unfortunate Members of Parliament who has to cope with a Liberal Democrat-run council. It may be worth asking Liberal Democrat Members to take some action on the state of that Liberal Democrat group. As recently as last week, there was yet another resignation from the Liberal Democrat group in Harrow. On leaving the group, the councillor said that he had become more and more dissatisfied with the attitude of members of his group. He was the second Liberal Democrat councillor to resign in disgust from the Harrow Liberal Democrat group. Four other Liberal Democrat councillors have resigned from the council, and the leadership of the Liberal Democrat group has changed three times in the past three and a half years.
It is no surprise to the people of Harrow that the legacy of those changes has been incompetence and a failure to grasp the problems facing my constituents. I am sure that those people would want to join me in condemning the plans of that Liberal Democrat group in each of the past two years to try to cut school budgets. The group attempted, despite the existence of obvious alternatives, to cut school budgets by up to 8 per cent. for each school. At the start of September, the first cuts that the group successfully introduced this year bit, and more than 50 teachers lost their jobs in schools in my constituency. I ask Liberal Democrat Members to tackle that tragedy behind the scenes, to raise the standards in that group.
This debate could have been a useful opportunity to consider how we can make progress on the Government's agenda of raising standards. I am afraid that instead it has been a mere party political effort by the Liberal Democrat party, in the light of the two forthcoming by-elections. Liberal Democrat Members must accept responsibility for failing to consider how to make progress on the Government's agenda, and failing to consider the opportunities to raise standards further in our public services.

Mr. John Bercow: There is an attack to be made on the Government's handling of the education and health services of this country, but the Liberal Democrats are the worst placed people to deliver that attack.

Mr. Simon Hughes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) affects to be surprised by my opening lines, but his pitiful contribution is testimony to the correctness of what I am saying.
I noticed, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) noticed, that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), graced us fleetingly with his presence in the Chamber.

Mr. Hughes: He will be back.

Mr. Bercow: I am glad to hear that, but it is very good news indeed for the hon. Gentleman that his leader was not present to hear his contribution, because he got himself into a frightful pickle.
The truth may be succinctly stated. The Liberal Democrats are puffed up with self-importance by their membership of a Cabinet Committee. The problem is that their right of free expression is constrained by it, and in attempting to square the circle, to manoeuvre themselves out of the unprincipled mess into which they have plunged, they have chosen today, of all days, to launch an attack on the Government.
People will recognise the cynicism of the timing of the debate. No doubt the press releases in Winchester and Beckenham have already spewed out of the fax machines so that a campaign of disinformation can be waged, but let it be clearly understood: the Liberal Democrats have every opportunity to raise the subjects of education, of health, and of the quality of our public services on that Cabinet Committee. They fail—indeed, decline—to do so. People in the country ought beyond peradventure to understand that the similarities that unite Liberal Democrat Members and the Government are always, everywhere and without exception greater than the differences that divide them.
Let me turn, as lain Macleod would have said, briefly but with relish, to the subject of funding, because that was a lamentably handled feature of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Being an emollient and kind-natured fellow, I am all in favour of partnership politics, but it would be helpful if the Liberal Democrats were capable of practising partnership politics within their own ranks. They are not. The inconsistency is manifest. The contradictions are plain for all to see.
For ages, the Liberal Democrats have been telling us that there should be another penny on income tax to finance education. On one occasion they told The Times that they had sought a change of stance and that they really sought to convey to the masses that a penny of income tax should be devoted additionally to education, but that income tax should not be increased.
This evening, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey stuck to the traditional line, saying that the additional penny raised by income tax should be spent on more books, special needs provision, reductions in class sizes and commitment to lifelong learning. He does not seem to be conscious of the fact that, on 4 July 1995, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) adopted an entirely different position. In the course of a by-election campaign in the north-west, he owned up to the reality that Liberal Democrat plans would cost another 2½p on the basic rate of income tax.
In case the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is looking bemused by that contradiction, as undoubtedly the House will have noticed he is, the explanation is readily available. He ought to consult his hon. Friend. They are sitting next to one another; one should be able to establish a partnership with the person next to whom one is sitting in the Chamber. There is a difference because in the course of that by-election, true to form, typical of Liberal Democrats' chameleon behaviour and consistent with their opportunist stance in by-elections, the hon. Member for Bath then spoke about additional expenditure on higher education and argued for universal social security benefits for part-time and full-time students in higher education. On the strength of that, it was dragged out of him under pressure that an additional 2½p would be required on taxation rather than the 1p with which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has contented himself in other speeches.
The Liberal Democrats are getting into great difficulty. Why was The Times briefed during the Liberal Democrat conference that the party was considering abandoning its commitment to increased taxation altogether? Liberal Democrats always say, in sanctimonious sermons to the public, that what we need is clarity and consistency. They say that the public demand clarity and principle, but what we get from the Liberal Democrats is twisting and turning—one statement one week and a different statement the next; one statement in one part of the country and a different statement in another.

Mr. David Jamieson: indicated assent.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is nodding. Given the area from which he comes, he will be aware of the sheer unbelievability of Liberal Democrats' opportunism and of their capacity to change their minds regularly, apparently without embarrassment.
People should understand that the Liberal Democrats and the Government are an alliance. They are an alliance against choice, competition, efficiency and value for money. They are an alliance for greater bureaucracy and stopping parental choice, and for believing that funds are always the answer and nothing else is in the equation. They are against both grant-maintained and grammar schools. In my county of Buckinghamshire, whose education results are unsurpassed in the United Kingdom, people on the doorstep have no doubts about how they should vote if they want choice, quality and competition, and if they favour the pursuit of excellence. The Government know that they are poorly represented in my county and will continue to be.
Voters in Buckinghamshire know that the Liberal Democrats are against grammar and grant-maintained schools. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey must therefore try to rescue himself from the difficulty into which he has plunged, on the subject of funding. He must seek to answer his constituents, and particularly the electors in Winchester and Beckenham, on his party's record. Liberal Democrats prattle on about the need for additional funds, but since the Conservatives took control of Hampshire county council on 1 May, spending on education is £2.5 million more than it was when the Liberal Democrats were in power.
We recognise that, although funds are a necessary condition of improvement in the quality of public services, they are not and never can be a sufficient condition. We believe in markets, choice and the power of competition. We believe in the right of parents to go elsewhere if they do not like the service that is provided in the state sector or a particular school. The Liberal Democrats are plainly ignorant of that because they are steeped in the orthodoxy of the 1960s. They are fanatics for egalitarianism but know nothing of excellence.
Excellence, choice, quality and competition form no part of the Liberal Democrats' lexicon, which is why, for the bulk of the time, they are on splendid terms with the Government. The Minister for School Standards is an agreeable fellow and an effective exponent of the Government's case, but he is also very chummy with the Liberal Democrats because they agree on most points.
What we have witnessed is in no sense a dalliance; nor is it a flirtation or an attempt at an affair. The relationship has been consummated. What we have witnessed between the Liberal Democrats and the Government is a full-blown marriage in which the contract has been clearly signed. Those people know nothing about what is needed to bolster education or health today.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to welcome the £12 million extra that Buckinghamshire health authority will receive from the Government next year to fund services? Does he accept that Buckinghamshire would not have received those funds under a Conservative Government?

Mr. Bercow: If the hon. Lady were factually correct, I would welcome that intervention, but as she is not, I do not. I accept that there has been a modest increase, but it is nothing like as much as the service providers in that part of the world need, nor anything like as much as a future Conservative Government choosing better priorities would deliver.
The choice open to voters in Winchester and Beckenham is to vote either for a party that wants to improve the quality of services or for a party obsessed only with inputs. I am concerned with outputs, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton; my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) devoted an extremely thoughtful speech to the subject. On that subject and on the results of the expenditure dedicated, the Liberal Democrat party has nothing coherent or intelligible to say.

Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred rather eloquently to the underfunding and undermining of public services during the 18 years of Conservative rule. He also said that many people were concerned that under new Labour those services might continue to be undermined and underfunded.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) accused my hon. Friend, a little unfairly, of not spending most of his speech praising the new Government. Today was not the most appropriate day to do that. It is important to recognise, however, that whenever the Liberal Democrats have considered it appropriate to do so and have agreed with the Government's proposals

and propositions, we have been willing to support them. We have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about trying to overcome the artificial boundaries between health and social services. We would be more than willing to work with him and the Government to deal with that question.
Labour Members, particularly Back Benchers, do not realise the full import of today's debate. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, praised the Government for the additional money being put into the health service in Halifax. However, she failed to note that in her local education authority area of Calderdale the Labour-controlled local education authority is in the process of planning a 1.5 per cent. cut in the education budget for next year. That cut will take place under a Labour Government. There are many other examples of that happening.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) was keen to defend the Government, but in so doing even he admitted that the money going into our schools was not enough. He went on to say that we must remember that we live in the real world. In the real world, local education authorities and health services are planning for further cuts in services. Local education authorities in Oxfordshire, for example, estimate that they need to make a £3.5 million cut in the education service.
Let us move closer to home and to the current Prime Minister. In Islington, the local authority is planning cuts of £9 million in overall services next year under a Labour Government, with £1.3 million likely to come off education services. In Brent, as a further example, cuts of £3 million from schools and a further £1.3 million from children's services are planned. That is the real world, of which the hon. Member for Gedling should be aware.
Only the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) did not mention Winchester in their speeches. I should hate to be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so let me point out that in the real world of Winchester further cuts in the education budget are planned. Schools such as Twyford primary school desperately need—but will not get—the money to replace temporary classrooms, where metal props are holding up the roof, making it difficult for some of the pupils to see the blackboard.
That is true not only of education services, but of other public services. The Local Government Association recently conducted a survey on the impact that the new Labour Government's budget for local government will have on care services in local authorities around the country. The survey showed that seven out of 10 local authorities will have to tighten the eligibility criteria for their care services; more than six out of 10 say that they will close establishments which provide much needed care; six out of 10 say that they will have to increase charges above the rate of inflation; and four out of 10 say that they will introduce new charges. Those are the real facts of the real world that are the subject of the debate.
It was a great pity that when the Secretary of State addressed the House he was not prepared to deal with the real figures. When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey whether he would accept the independent figures prepared by the Library of the House of Commons, he said that he was not prepared to do so.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will be prepared to accept the figures presented by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 4 November this year. When asked what would be the spending on health in the current financial year on a constant price base under the new Labour budget, as opposed to what it would have been under the previous Tory budget, the Minister's answers were revealing. Under Labour's budget, it would be £33,306 million; the Tory budget would have been £33,422 million. Simple arithmetic shows that less money is being spent this year by the Labour Government under their budget than would have been spent under the Tory budget, on a constant price base. Those are not the independent House of Commons Library figures, but the figures prepared by the Minister of State, the Department of Health.

Mrs. Ellman: Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman will not allow the facts to stand in the way of his polemic? Does he agree that in his own constituency of Bath, under the Labour Government's plans, the health authority—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have noticed two occasions when information from the official Box has come not to the Front Bench, but to Government Back Benchers. Would it be possible to draw hon. Members' attention to the convention of the House that the official Box is there to provide information to hon. Members on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The hon. Gentleman is correct. That would normally be the case, and it would be helpful if hon. Members could observe the conventions.

Mr. Foster: I regret giving way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) if she was merely reading out the brief just passed to her. She will surely understand that I am not trying to make up figures: I am giving figures that have been quoted by the Minister in the past two weeks and which make clear the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was arguing earlier.
It is a great pity that by wafting in front of the House a large number of statistics the Secretary of State seemed more interested in the language of the spin doctor than in the language of real doctors.
We heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) his concern that one Member of Parliament sometimes says something different from another Member of Parliament. In that context, it is interesting to consider the comments of the Secretary of State in relation to Hereford hospital. He said that the move was wonderful and had been welcomed by everybody, and that there had been widespread consultation. I would say to the Secretary of State, were he here, that I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), believe that it is a wonderful move forward, but it would be wrong to say that it was widely welcomed, because the Labour party candidate in the

general election opposed it, and it would be wrong to say that there had been widespread consultation about it, as in the past few weeks a delegation from Unison has been to see my hon. Friend to complain about the lack of consultation on the matter.
A great deal of spin has been put on health service figures during the debate. We all remember the card produced by the Labour party during the general election showing Labour's five early pledges, which the party made clear that it would get on and implement straight away. One of those five early pledges was to
cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step".
Interestingly, if one went to the Labour party conference and bought the mug displaying Labour's five early pledges, that pledge was not worded in quite the same way. I wonder why that was. The Minister of State has made it clear that he knows that those figures will not come down during the lifetime of this Parliament.
We heard an interesting contribution from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who told the House with great glee that she "wrote it all myself". The majority of the House would no doubt share my view that it might be a good idea if she found herself a speechwriter. Not only did she spend most of her time moving hither and thither, but the one clear theme that emerged from her speech was her fascination with people getting in bed together. She referred in an obsessively prurient way to matters such as liaisons dangereuses, but all was revealed when she said that she now understands that getting in bed together is about sitting round a table. One wonders what happened at the Tory party's bonding session in Eastbourne.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of relationships, may I tell him that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is more up to date with the gossip than with the facts? She alleges that we have relationships only with Labour. After the debate, she may wish to comment on the fact that one of her colleagues in the other place, Lord Hugh Thomas of Swynnerton, has today left her party and joined ours because he believes that we are more in touch with the people than her party ever has been.

Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend makes a telling point and brings me a piece of information that I had not heard. I am grateful to him. The problem with the hon. Lady's contribution to the debate—

Mrs. Browning: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the noble Lord was a Labour peer before he was a Conservative peer. It shows the rather wayward nature of such relationships.

Mr. Foster: The noble Lord has clearly moved around—he was head of the Tory party think tank at one time—but however much he may have wandered over time, he has at last found the holy grail and he is very welcome.
The hon. Lady was clearly not talking about the holy grail in her speech. She tried desperately—and unsuccessfully—to defend 18 years of Tory misrule. How could anyone come to the Dispatch Box during a public services debate and fail—as she did—to mention


the appalling cuts that took place under the Tories? Public services were cut to the bone during 18 years of Conservative government.
The real point of today's debate is to express concern about the effect that those cuts are now having. We must know whether the new Government are prepared to do something about that—as the Liberal Democrats would.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, the hon. Gentleman promised to make a brief speech and then took more than 16 minutes. I must press on.
Are the Government prepared to do something about the state of our public services? The evidence to date is slightly worrying. My hon. Friends and I have cited worrying figures for health, and the situation is equally disturbing in education. The Liberal Democrats were chastised for not praising the Government for the good things that they have done. I acknowledge that the Labour Government have done some good during their short time in office, but they have also imposed spending cuts on various local authorities, heralding teacher job losses and rising class sizes, while threatening local education authorities with hit squads, cutting school budgets and introducing university tuition fees. The Government's education budget offers jam tomorrow—and very little of it.
I will explain why that is so. We have had far too much spin recently. When the Government get into a spin—as they did over the tuition fees issue—they spend money that could have gone to education trying to stop people's heads from spinning. The Government have spent about half a million pounds on a publicity campaign explaining their new policies.
The Secretary of State also tried to put a spin on the allocation of additional money. The other day he announced £83 million for further education, as though he had found some wonderful new money, but in reality the Government did not find a single penny of additional money: £20 million came from employers, £48 million was recycled money from existing training schemes, and the remaining £15 million came from accounting changes within the Department. That is the reality: despite the Secretary of State's spin, there was no new money.
What about the Government's Budget that claims to give new money to education? If we take into account the impact of rising inflation on education, we find that local authorities will lose £157 million in school funding this year. The Government claim that local authorities will have extra money next year. However, the carry-forward of the teachers' pay award reduces that sum to £673 million. Local authorities will face severe pressures as a result of rising pupil numbers, which reduces available money to £404 million.
Local authorities were expecting to make a 1 per cent. funding cut next year and they must make reductions of £1.3 million overall, which will cut school funding still further. That reduces the money available to a £34 million increase. Sadly, however, £333 million is set aside for capital expenditure. So the net effect of the Budget hailed as providing new money for this year and next is that it will leave schools £157 million short this year and nearly £300 million short next year.
In the run-up to the general election, Labour candidates around the country campaigned against Tory education cuts. However, the Labour party is now delivering those Tory cuts in government. Before the debate, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned that the Government were having to deal with a "lousy Tory budget". It does not have to be like that; I believe that there is another way. The Government believe that extra money will come from a successful economy: the Liberal Democrats believe that increased investment in education is an essential ingredient for creating that successful economy.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government welcome this opportunity to debate our public services. After 18 years of neglect, it is time for the House to address the vital issue of the future of our public services. After those 18 years of neglect and four Parliaments, what did we inherit on 2 May? We have record levels of debt in the national health service, record levels of crime on our streets, and public housing starts at an all-time low. As a result, the nation is divided.
Nowhere is the division and failure more clear than in the education service, where four out of 10 11-year-olds fail to reach the target standard for their age in mathematics and English; where only one in two 16-year-olds gets five good GCSEs; where 20 per cent. of adults have literacy or numeracy problems; and where 50,000 16-year-olds left school last year without a qualification and nothing to show for 11 years of statutory education.
That is the legacy of our predecessors: a legacy of shame and of failure. The Conservatives failed to provide the people of this country with a decent health service, good housing, freedom from the fear of crime, and a high-quality education service. That failure is not just social, but economic. The previous Government failed to equip our country with the education and skill base that we need in order to compete in the modern world. Investment in education, training and lifelong learning is essential if we are to put right the neglect of the past two decades.
I share many of the concerns expressed by the Liberal Democrats this evening, and we welcome the choice of subject. We have a huge task if we are to convert Britain into a modern, successful economy capable of providing decent public services. While I regret the tone and nature of some Liberal Democrat speeches, there is an important principle on which we agree that distinguishes our two parties from the Conservative party. While the Conservative party is hostile to the very idea of public services, we believe in strong public services that respond to people's needs and not to the wealth of those who use them.
As a Government, we shall act for all our people and not just a few. We recognise that, in order to govern for our whole nation, we must look beyond groups of individuals and families struggling on their own and treasure the fact that there is such a thing as society.

Mr. Bercow: I am following the Minister's argument closely. Does he acknowledge that, when he says that the Conservatives are hostile to publicly funded and publicly provided services, he is being not only very immature but


deeply insulting to those of us who have used, and have been proud to use, public services—including health and education—for years?

Mr. Byers: If the hon. Gentleman had represented an inner-city seat on Tyneside for the past five years under a Conservative Government, he would know only too well the destruction and the chaos that that Government inflicted upon essential public services. The Conservative Government believed that the market should determine essential public services. From our experience, that approach clearly fails our people and those essential public services.
We believe that there is such a thing as society. We want to see a society that is both strong and united, in which we marshal the power of society to advance and benefit the individuals within it—the power of all for the good of each. Efficient, accessible and accountable public services do precisely that. They harness the power of all for the good of each.
The previous Government—the Government of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—allowed dogma to triumph over reason, with services sacrificed on the altar of the market. It was an approach based on winners and losers. Let the position of this Government be clear. We reject a philosophy for essential public services, such as health, social services and education, that is based on the belief—the belief of the Conservative party—that some of our people must be losers for others to be winners. Our commitment is to ensure that all our people benefit from good public services.

Mr. Willis: I shall raise a point that has not come out in the debate, but first we welcome the Minister' s comments about some of the values that we share.
One of the great issues, to which I would like a straight answer, is that much of the new money that the Minister claims is going into health and education is from reserves or the windfall tax. What will happen when that money runs out?

Mr. Byers: That was a very interesting intervention, because for the past two and a half hours we have heard from the Liberal Democrats that no new money will be made available to fund health and education. Now we hear the truth—there is new money. It is coming from the reserve in the short term. We are investing in education and health to build a future, so that the economic growth will eventually provide the wealth for our country and fund those essential public services. We are spending from the reserve to save for the future, and redirecting it into essential public services. That is exactly what we are seeking to do.
It is important, however, as we consider the future of public services, that we recognise that public services themselves must change. By definition, they exist to serve the public, but all too often they are seen to operate for the convenience of producer interests. Well, no more. The Government will defend, protect and support public services only where they are accountable to their public; where they provide a high-quality service and are committed to raising standards.
Although we share a principal support for public services with the Liberal Democrats, we do not understand how they would pay to put right the legacy of

neglect. During the election, they told us that we needed an extra penny on income tax to spend £1.8 billion on education—or did they? The briefings that they put out during their party conference neither confirmed nor denied where they stand on this issue. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, is not in the Chamber—[Interruption.] I am sorry, he is here. I am grateful. He has just arrived in the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No he has not."] The reason why it would be of interest to the Liberal Democrats is that, during their party conference, the spin doctors were spinning away about the Liberal Democrats' pledge to increase spending on education.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Mr. Byers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use this opportunity to clarify the position for the House.

Mr. Bruce: Our position was unequivocal. We said that to fund education we would put a penny on income tax if necessary. We said that it was necessary and we made that commitment. We have not backtracked on it.

Mr. Byers: I am grateful for that very important condition. It is no longer a cast-iron commitment for a penny on income tax to fund the £1.8 billion. Instead the condition is "if necessary". We do not know what conditions will be attached or what criteria will need to be met, if necessary, to put that money into the education service.
The Government have already put more than £1.8 billion into the education service. The Budget introduced on 2 July by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer ensured that there was real money, in real terms, for education and health. The Government believe in spending when it is prudent to do so. We make no apology for that.
A central part of the Government's commitment to prudent spending is our comprehensive spending review: a root and branch review of public spending in all Government Departments, with a view to reordering our spending priorities. We will do precisely that. We are taking a fundamental look at Government spending from a zero base; starting from basics, asking whether the Government need to spend money in the way that we do. There may be other ways to meet public needs. If there is a case to continue any programme, we will aim to do so in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
In just six months we have begun to reorder our priorities. We have allocated £1.2 billion to the national health service; £1 billion to schools from the reserve next year for day-to-day education spending to employ more teachers, reduce class sizes, and update books and equipment. We expect more than £2 billion to be spent through the new deal on capital for schools. We have released a further £900 million under our capital receipts initiative. Spending on the police service will rise by 3.7 per cent. to £7.3 billion. That is not underfunding. It is a commitment to fund priority areas. It is targeting resources to help the most vulnerable: the sick, the unemployed, the young and the old. We will enable them to get the help that they need and deserve. We will ensure that the money is passed on to fund those essential public services. We will improve education standards in schools and the standards of schools.
We are committed to reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. One of the key pledges—we heard about key pledges from Liberal Democrat Members—in our election campaign was that, by the end of this Parliament, the class size for five, six and seven-year-olds would be reduced to 30 or fewer. I can tell the House that we shall begin to implement that pledge not in 2001, not in 2000 or 1999, but from the next school year. In September next year we will provide an additional £22 million to employ 1,000 extra teachers, all of whom will be used to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds.
We will also invite local authorities to submit plans for capital spending under our new deal project for next year to carry out the necessary building alterations to deliver our class size reduction pledge. On the latest figures, nearly 500,000 infants are being taught in classes of more than 30. That is unacceptable. We must begin cutting class size as a matter of urgency. We will begin to do so from the next school year.
The Government are not complacent about the work that is still to be done. The neglect of two decades will not be put right over night. Service standards matter, and the Government will ensure that service standards are improved. The Government will put in place policies that will allow us to invest in education, social services and health, instead of having to pay the high costs of economic failure, criminal behaviour and social squalor. If we do not change course, we will have two classes of health service, two classes of state school, and, as a result, a fractured and divided country.
Under this Government there will be change. Public services have a crucial role to play in ensuring that we become a nation united, working together for the common good. In just six months, we have already begun the task of turning around 18 years of neglect. We shall rebuild our public services so that our people can once again take pride in them. Those public services will be efficient, accountable and accessible, and they will meet the needs of the many, not the few. That is why I commend to the House the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 300.

Division No. 89]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr Lynda


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coaker, Vernon


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Iain


Atherton, Ms Candy
Colman, Tony


Atkins, Charlotte
Connarty, Michael


Austin, John
Cooper, Yvette


Banks, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cox, Tom


Beard, Nigel
Cranston, Ross


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cummings, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benton, Joe
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bermingham, Gerald
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davidson, Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Borrow, David
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Denham, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Drew, David


Browne, Desmond
Drown, Ms Julia


Buck, Ms Karen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Edwards, Huw


Byers, Stephen
Efford, Clive


Caborn, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Canavan, Dennis
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Cann, Jamie
Flint, Caroline


Caplin, Ivor
Follett, Barbara


Caton, Martin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chaytor, David
Foulkes, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fyfe, Maria


Clapham, Michael
Galloway, George


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gapes, Mike






Gardiner, Barry
McFall, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gerrard, Neil
McIsaac, Shona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godman, Norman A
Mactaggart, Fiona


Godsiff, Roger
McWalter, Tony


Goggins, Paul
McWilliam, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mandelson, Peter


Grant, Bernie
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Grogan, John
Maxton, John


Hain, Peter
Meale, Alan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Merron, Gillian


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Milburn, Alan


Hanson, David
Mitchell, Austin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hepburn, Stephen
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hesford, Stephen
Mountford, Kali


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Home Robertson, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hood, Jimmy
Norris, Dan


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hope, Phil
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Olner, Bill


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Neill, Martin


Howells, Dr Kim
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pearson, Ian


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Plaskitt, James


Illsley, Eric
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pond, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pound, Stephen


Jamieson, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Prescott, Rt Hon John


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rammell, Bill


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Rapson, Syd


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kidney, David
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rowlands, Ted


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ruane, Chris


Lepper, David
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Levitt, Tom
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Salter, Martin


Linton, Martin
Savidge, Malcolm


Lock, David
Sawford, Phil


Love, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCabe, Steve
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McDonnell, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)





Singh, Marsha
Todd, Mark


Skinner, Dennis
Touhig, Don


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Truswell, Paul


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Soley, Clive
Vis, Dr Rudi


Squire, Ms Rachel
Ward, Ms Claire


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wareing, Robert N


Steinberg, Gerry
Watts, David


Stevenson, George
White, Brian


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wills, Michael


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wise, Audrey


Stringer, Graham
Woolas, Phil


Sutclifte, Gerry
Wray, James


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


(Dewsbury)



Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. Greg Pope and


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. David Clelland.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Baker, Norman
Keetch, Paul


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brake, Tom
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Breed, Colin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Burnett, John
Moore, Michael


Burstow, Paul
Öpik, Lembit


Cable, Dr Vincent
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chidgey, David
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Dafis, Cynog
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Fearn, Ronnie
Wallace, James


Foster, Don (Bath)
Webb, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Hancock, Mike
Willis, Phil


Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Paul Tyler and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Donald Gorrie.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Notes 43.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the extra £1.5 billion the new Government has made available to the National Health Service since taking office; notes that this is more than the Liberal Democrats promised in their Election Manifesto; further welcomes the £100 million shifted this year out of NHS red tape and into frontline patient care, including £10 million for breast cancer treatment and £5 million for children's intensive care; further welcomes the £1.3 billion hospital building programme announced since the election; welcomes the £2.3 billion extra over Conservative spending plans announced in the Budget for education, including £1.3 billion to tackle the backlog of repairs in schools and to bring further improvements for education in the future; further welcomes the public/private partnership approach adopted in education which will increase that sum further to £2 billion by 2002; welcomes the start that has been made on achieving the Government's pledge to


reduce infant class sizes and to phase out the assisted places scheme; welcomes the enormous strides that have begun in improving standards in schools; and congratulates the Government on the commitment that has been thus shown to the public services, in particular in education, health and social services.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister for Transport in London for being present, because I gave her notice that I would raise an important point of order. It arises from a point of order raised with you, Madam Speaker, by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
As my hon. Friend has already told you, earlier today we were surprised to hear that two coastguard stations were to close and to be merged into a single station. Last Wednesday, I asked the Minister, in Committee, whether the rumour had any foundation, and was told that it was empty speculation, and that simply repeating what had been in the press for some time was fanning the flames of scaremongering.
I have now seen a press release that describes the move as not reducing the number of people employed in the coastguard service. It talks of 200 new jobs. That refers to 200 people who were recruited recently to replace 500 who had lost their jobs last year; in fact, there are 75 new job losses. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to make a statement to put the record straight, and to promise that hon. Members who represent constituents in the areas involved will be consulted about such life-threatening issues. We should at least have had the chance of being consulted before, rather than—I do not know how to describe the words that have been given to me.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): rose

Madam Speaker: Order. It is not for Ministers to answer points of order; it is for the Speaker to do that. If the Minister wishes to raise a point of order, as she has indicated, I will deal with it.

Mr. James Wallace: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the point of order?

Mr. Wallace: Yes, Madam Speaker. Although I was not in the Chamber at the time, I noted the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), and what you said in response. Since press reports about two and a half weeks ago that a coastguard station in my constituency, and one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), were threatened with closure, we have both been seeking meetings with the Minister to put our case before a decision was made; but our requests have been turned down. That makes things very difficult after an event has taken place. Will you look at that, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: When hon. Members seek an interview or a meeting with a Minister, it is customary for the request to be granted at the earliest opportunity. The Minister is present, and may wish to respond.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Further to the last point of order, Madam Speaker. It is not within my knowledge that meetings have been requested. Had such meetings been requested, I would of course have agreed to them.
Further to the first point of order, a response to a parliamentary question is in today's Official Report. As for the question of whether two coastguard stations would be closed and reduced to a single station, I made the point—very succinctly—that two stations would, in effect, be housed under one roof, and that there would be no diminution of either manpower or coverage.

Madam Speaker: In my response to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I suggested that he apply for a half-hour Adjournment debate. As other hon. Members are involved, perhaps I can make this clear to the House. A number of hon. Members may like to write in, and who knows? They may be given a debate lasting an hour and a half on a Wednesday morning. In any event, they can all be given five or 10 minutes in which to deal with their own areas, and we can get this properly on the record.

Standards and Privileges

[Relevant documents: First report from the Committee (HC30-I, II and III) and memoranda laid before the Committee (HC 30-IV).]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House approves the Seventh and Eighth Reports of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 240, 26I).—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Madam Speaker: Let me tell the House that I have no intention of putting a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. So many Members wish to speak, however, that I expect Members to discipline themselves.
I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), which can be divided on, if necessary, at the end of the debate.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I think that the House should first understand the difficulties facing my colleagues in finishing the business of the former Committee. Doing that is always difficult, but it is even more difficult in such a complicated case.
The reports that we are considering originate in a statement that you, Madam Speaker, made to the House on 14 October last year, after Mr. Neil Hamilton withdrew from his libel action against The Guardian  You pointed to the serious allegations that had been widely made about the conduct of a number of Members of Parliament. You said that those matters must be resolved as soon as possible, and you called on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to make an early special report to the House so that the full nature and scope of any investigation that it undertook could be made known.
On 20 October, the former Committee reported to the House that it had asked the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, to investigate the allegations as a matter of urgency. The Committee arranged for the Commissioner to have the additional legal and administrative assistance that he asked for. It went on to say that, when the Commissioner had established the precise allegations and had assembled the supporting evidence, he would
determine whether there is prima facie evidence of a case to answer and, where possible, reach conclusions on whether the allegations have been substantiated.
I emphasise those words. The task that the former Committee gave the Commissioner was not simply to find out whether there was a prima facie case, but to go further and, where possible, to reach conclusions on whether the allegations had been substantiated.
When the new Committee met for the first time after the general election, Sir Gordon Downey presented us with his findings on the allegations against 25 Members and former Members. The Committee published his findings, with the oral and written evidence on which they were based, as its first report.
I am pleased to say that the majority of Members against whom allegations have been made were completely exonerated of any wrongdoing and I need make no further reference to them. Five former Members—Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Michael Brown, Sir Michael Grylls, Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Tim Smith—were criticised by the Commissioner. They made written representations to the Committee, which were

published at the same time as the Commissioner's findings. Apart from Mr. Neil Hamilton, with whom I shall deal separately, those Members challenged the Commissioner's interpretation of the facts, rather than the facts themselves.
Having considered the Commissioner's findings and what the Members concerned said in their defence, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges considered whether the rules of the House had been broken and to what extent the conduct of the former Members had fallen short of the standards expected of them.
In the cases of Mr. Brown and of Sir Andrew Bowden, the Commissioner found failures to register or to declare financial interests. We concluded that their conduct fell below the standards that the House is entitled to expect of its Members. Had Mr. Brown still been a Member, we would have recommended a period of suspension from the service of the House, and we would have considered recommending a similar penalty for Sir Andrew Bowden.
In the case of Sir Michael Grylls, the Commissioner found that he persistently failed to declare his interests in dealings with Ministers and officials. Moreover, he deliberately misled the Select Committee on Members' Interests by seriously understating the number of commission payments that he had received from Mr. Ian Greer and by omitting to inform the Committee of other fees received from Mr. Greer. In doing so, he committed a contempt of the House. We found that the conduct of Sir Michael Grylls fell seriously below the standards that the House is entitled to expect of its Members. If he were still a Member, we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension, augmented to take account of his deceit.
In the case of Mr. Tim Smith, the Commissioner found that he had accepted substantial cash payments from Mr. Al Fayed in return for lobbying services and that he had concealed those payments. The Commissioner also found that the form in which Mr. Smith had registered his interest in the House of Fraser was totally unacceptable, and that he had persistently and deliberately failed to declare his interests in dealings with Ministers and officials. The Committee found that his conduct fell seriously below the standards that the House is entitled to expect.
We noted that Mr. Smith had admitted a substantial part of the allegations against him and made a full public apology. Nevertheless, if he had still been a Member, we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House.
Therefore, of the 25 Members, 20 were exonerated by the Commissioner and the conduct of five was found to be unacceptable. Only one of those 25 has sought to overturn the Commissioner's findings—Mr. Neil Hamilton.
The Commissioner concluded that there was compelling evidence that Mr. Hamilton received cash payments directly from Mr. Al Fayed and that the way in which those payments were received and concealed fell well below the standards expected of Members of Parliament. The Commissioner also criticised Mr. Hamilton for failing to register hospitality received from Mr. Al Fayed at the Ritz and elsewhere, for failing to register two introduction payments from Mr. Ian Greer, for deliberately misleading the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about his financial relationship


with Mr. Greer, for failing to register a consultancy fee from Strategy Network International, and for persistently and deliberately failing, in dealings with Ministers and officials, to declare his interests.
The Commissioner did not uphold other allegations against Mr. Hamilton. In particular, he found no evidence that Mr. Hamilton received cash from Mr. Al Fayed indirectly through Mr. Greer, and he found that there was insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Hamilton received Harrods vouchers. Mr. Hamilton has now admitted, and apologised for, many of the failures to register and to declare interests, but he denies that he received any cash payments from Mr. A1 Fayed.
The conclusion s that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges reached in Mr. Hamilton's case deal, first, with the issues of non-registration and non-declaration. We concluded that
cumulatively this list of omissions adds up to a casualness bordering on indifference or contempt towards the rules of the House on disclosure of interests. Mr. Hamilton's conduct fell seriously and persistently"—
I repeat: seriously and persistently—
below the standards which the House is entitled to expect of its Members.
That is the only occasion when we have used the words:
seriously and persistently below the standards".
The Committee goes on:
Had Mr. Hamilton still been a Member we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House".
I emphasise that that is the view of the Committee as a whole and that we formed that view irrespective of whether Mr. Hamilton took undeclared cash payments from Mr. Al Fayed.
That issue—the cash payments—was the most difficult that the Committee had to deal with. As I have said, the Commissioner found the evidence compelling. It included Mr. Al Fayed's first-hand account, with corroborative evidence provided by several of his employees, in particular Alison Bozek, a key witness, who provided evidence that she put the £50 notes in brown paper bags and wrote Mr. Hamilton's name on them, to be collected by Mr. Hamilton. She had been out of Mr. Al Fayed's employment for two and a half years when she gave the evidence to the Commissioner. At that time, she was in training to become a solicitor in a leading firm of City solicitors.

Mr. Edward Leigh: In his report, the right hon. Gentleman's Committee said:
This was a parliamentary inquiry and there was no attempt to replicate the procedures of a court action.
Surely the point of a court action and of our procedures, which have been built up over hundreds of years, is to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done. Many people cannot understand why his Committee did not give Mr. Neil Hamilton a chance to cross-examine his accusers. That is an absolutely elementary part of natural justice and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain why Mr. Hamilton was not given that opportunity.

Mr. Sheldon: I will come to that, but it was not a court action. In fact, as the House will know, Mr. Hamilton withdrew from the court action because his colleague withdrew.
Alison Bozek was interviewed by the Commissioner two and half years after her period of employment with Mr. Al Fayed, when she was training to be a solicitor at Allen and Overy Solicitors. A partner, Mr. House, said this about her:
I am very happy to provide a reference for Alison, who is currently working as a trainee in my department.
Alison applied for a training contract in September 1992. Her application was not given preferential treatment because of her position with Mohamed Al-Fayed. She was interviewed in February 1993 during our normal recruitment season and offered a position as a trainee solicitor on her own merits. After completing law school, she joined Allen and Overy on a two-year training contract in February 1996.
In November 1992 we took up a reference from Birkbeck College, University of London, where Alison studied for her BA as a part-time student. The reference is very positive in all respects and includes the statement 'I can vouch for her integrity'.
During her year with the firm Alison has met the high standards we expect of our trainee solicitors. I have never had the slightest reason to doubt her honesty and reliability.
I have formed a high opinion of Alison. She has been working for some time with me and other lawyers on a demanding case, and our regard for her is such that we have extended her period in the Litigation department, when in the normal course she would have moved on to another part of the firm.
She is mature, sensible and reliable. I do not believe she would lie in order to support her former employer's contentions. I hope this is sufficient for your purposes, and I will be happy to provide any further information you require. Once again I apologise for the delay in replying.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it not rather curious that the right hon. Gentleman should read to the House a long testimonial for a witness whom he prevented us from calling to the Committee? I was never able to put any questions to Ms Bozek. The right hon. Gentleman prevented the Committee from seeing that witness and forming its own view about her.

Mr. Sheldon: The Committee decided differently from the hon. Gentleman. I am giving the evidence that was received and acknowledged by the Commissioner.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: How long was it before this lady came forward to give evidence? That is a material factor.

Mr. Sheldon: She came when she was called by the Commissioner and Nigel Pleming. I shall deal with some other points when we come to the hon. Gentleman's amendment and if he wants to ask questions at that stage I shall be happy to answer them. I have outlined one part of the evidence which, in my view, is important. Other evidence is documentary and it has been tested forensically in private one-to-one meetings between Mr. Al Fayed and Mr. Hamilton, apparently at Mr. Hamilton's request.
Mr. Hamilton's letter to Mr. Al Fayed on 23 July shows a commitment strongly suggesting a financial relationship. Paragraph 142 of the report states:
In his letter to Mr Al Fayed Mr Hamilton explained that he had now been elected Secretary of the Conservative backbench Finance Committee and Vice-Chairman of the backbench Trade and Industry Committee, which, as he put it, 'gives me a better position from which to act on your behalf', adding: 'Previously, as a PPS, it was less easy'. Mr Hamilton concluded by saying that he would shortly be writing to Mr Francis Maude, the new junior Minister at the DTI.


It is not a matter of one man's word against another. Mr. Hamilton submitted a lengthy memorandum in which he challenged the Commissioner's findings. We asked the Commissioner for his comments on Mr. Hamilton's submission, and he gave them to us. Mr. Hamilton then appeared before us. He continued to deny the charge and questioned at some length the credibility of the witnesses but did not present relevant new evidence that might have formed a basis for further examination.
We had to consider whether it might be appropriate for us to take the matter further by calling the witnesses whom Mr. Hamilton sought to discredit. For reasons that I understand and respect but do not share, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) argued that we should, but we decided not to do that. If we had called further evidence, in my view and in the view of the Committee, we would inevitably have been drawn into reopening the whole of the Commissioner's inquiry.
The Commissioner's findings were based on the evidence of more than 60 witnesses and documents consisting of about 14,000 pages. A considerable proportion of that evidence related to Mr. Hamilton. If we had attempted to re-do the Commissioner's work, I do not think that we would have been able to take the matter any further than the Commissioner had done.
In the context of the amendment that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), the hon. Gentleman is naive to think that calling Mr. Al Fayed would be the end of the matter. Mr. Hamilton accuses many people of lying. He accuses of lying Mr. Al Fayed, Mr. Macnamara, Mr. Webb, Mr. Cole, Ms Bond, Ms Bozek, Mr. Bromfield, Mr. Preston, Mr. Hencke and Mr. Mullen. Mr. Hamilton says that all those people are liars and he is not.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Commissioner did not take any evidence on oath? In paragraph 72 of his report, he gives his reasons for not taking evidence on oath and says that, in part, it was because he understood that the Committee was in a position to take evidence on oath. The result of the Committee's decision not to do that is that no evidence has been taken on oath or, to put it differently, none of the evidence was given on oath.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Except for Mr. Hamilton's.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, except for Mr. Hamilton's evidence.

Mr. Sheldon: The Commissioner had with him Mr. Nigel Pleming QC and, as I have said, they conducted the investigation by calling more than 60 witnesses and having submitted to them documents consisting of more than 14,000 pages. They produced 900 pages for the Committee to examine. That was the consequence of the Commissioner's undertaking. As a result, our report concluded:
We are satisfied that the Commissioner has carried out a thorough inquiry which took the evidence presented to him fully into account. The Committee did not arrive at a practicable way of reaching a judgment which adds to or subtracts from the Commissioner's findings. So the Commissioner's findings stand.

Our problem was that, if we had taken just bits of evidence rather than the evidence of the 10 who have been accused of lying, each of those witnesses would be involved in other accusations and, as a result, we would have to do not only the work of the Commissioner all over again but even more.
I want to see the Committee succeed. It is difficult to take over a problem that was being dealt with by an earlier Committee, but that was the task before us. Our problem was to conduct an investigation through a Committee which, by its nature, reflects political party strengths. The Commissioner, a man of repute and high standing, conducted his affairs extremely well and thoroughly.
Three misapprehensions have been given currency since the Committee's report was produced. The first, which Mr. Hamilton himself has put about, is that the Committee has found against him on a series of trivial complaints and has been unable to reach a conclusion on the only complaint that matters. Mr. Hamilton has used the term "parking offences" and has compared the allegation about cash payments to a murder charge. That is disgracefully wrong. The other offences are not trivial and, taken as a whole, they are serious breaches of the rules of the House—serious enough to warrant a substantial period of suspension.
On the matter of the cash payments, the Committee decided by nine votes to nil that it could neither add to, nor subtract from, the Commissioner's findings. That is a clear majority for the Committee's decision. On that basis, as I said before, the Commissioner's report stands.
The second misapprehension is that the Commissioner has somehow exceeded his proper role. It has been suggested that the Commissioner's task is merely to find whether there is a prima facie case of a breach of the House's rules and that, if his finding of a prima facie case is contested by the Member concerned, it is for the Committee to hear the case and reach conclusions. I remind the House of the wholly exceptional complexity of this case. Allegations were made about a large number of Members.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has said that, when we reached a conclusion, we had no practicable method of adding to, or subtracting from, the Commissioner's findings and that that meant that the Commissioner's findings stood. Is it not true that, when an amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours), I explicitly told the Committee, "If this is a concealed endorsement and that is the agenda, I will not support it"? I was assured by the hon. Member for Workington that it was not a concealed endorsement. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I believe that I was grossly misled. Let me put it plainly on the record. I do not endorse the Commissioner's findings.

Mr. Sheldon: That is a matter for the right hon. Lady. I am saying that if we neither subtract from, nor add to, a report, the report stands. I found no other way to handle the matter.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The words moved by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) were to substitute for the following words in the original draft—

[Interruption.] This was in the report. The words in the original draft were:
We have no reason to question his"—
that is, the Commissioner's—
findings and we therefore endorse them.
The Committee struck out those words and instead inserted the words moved by the hon. Member for Workington.

Mr. Sheldon: We say in our report that there was no other practicable way. That is a sensible observation. We accepted that we could not add to, or subtract from, the Commissioner's findings. I have only one interpretation of that—even though the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, whom I greatly respect, thinks differently—and it is that the Commissioner's report stands.

Sir Peter Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheldon: We are rather tight for time, but I shall give way.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I listened with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman said. It appears to me, and I hope that he will agree, that the procedure adopted by the Committee will stand up only when the essential facts are not in dispute. When they are in dispute, the procedure that he described does not stand up and provide a satisfactory outcome. When the facts are heavily in dispute, as they are in respect of the brown envelopes, should not those making the allegations and those seeking to rebut them be cross-examined and heard, on oath, by the Committee?

Mr. Sheldon: The problem remained that a vast amount of information was available. If we had proceeded along the lines the right hon. Gentleman suggested, we would have done more than just copied the work in the 900-page report and the 14,000 pages of documents because further allegations would have been made. We could not cancel out some of the evidence, because it would take too long. I could find no way to deal with such a procedure.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheldon: I am sorry, but I must make some progress. I shall try to give way later.
As I have said again and again, the major problem was that of a major investigation replicating the work of the Commissioner and carried out by a Committee that reflected party strengths. It was an inevitable problem. We gave the task to the Commissioner—an Officer of the House of Commons. We had confidence in him. He was not a prosecutor. The offences were not trivial and, taken as a whole, they were serious breaches of the rules of the House.
The second misapprehension is that the Commissioner has somehow exceeded his proper role. It has been suggested that his task is merely to find out if there has

been a breach of the rules of the House and that, if his finding is contested by the Member concerned, it is for the Committee to hear the case and reach a conclusion.
I remind the House of the great complexity of the case, with the large numbers of witnesses to be examined and the huge bulk of documents to be examined. I also remind the House that the matter originated not with a complaint where the onus was on the complainant to submit the supporting evidence, but from Madam Speaker's statement. The Commissioner had to define the allegations and assemble the evidence.
The former Select Committee asked the Commissioner not merely to assess whether there was a prima facie case but, where possible, to reach conclusions on whether the allegations were substantiated and to report his findings to the Committee. That was the task an Officer of the House of Commons was given and he did it. Any other course would have left the Committee with an impossible task to perform.
The third misapprehension is that Mr. Hamilton has somehow been denied natural justice and that the Committee has failed to give him an opportunity to appeal against the Commissioner's findings. The procedures adopted by the Commissioner were inquisitorial, not adversarial. He was not a prosecutor; his aim was to arrive at the truth, not to secure a conviction. The procedures were shown in advance to the former Select Committee and to the hon. Members whose conduct was under investigation. They are described in full in the Commissioner's 900-page report. Not many people will have read all 900 pages, but they should at least read some of the most relevant parts.
The parties to the investigation were given the opportunity to comment on evidence produced by other parties which was relevant to the allegations against them. The Commissioner did not discuss his findings with those being investigated, at the request of the former Committee. I believe that the procedures adopted were fair to all concerned.
The Committee considered a great deal of material from Mr. Hamilton. The written and oral evidence that was before the Commissioner is all on the record. There is also a lengthy memorandum from Mr. Hamilton in which he challenges the Commissioner's findings. In addition, he appeared before the Committee and addressed it for two and a half hours in a public session. The Committee has bent over backwards to give Mr. Hamilton every opportunity to put his case to it and to respond to the Commissioner's findings. Had he presented new evidence that was not available to the Commissioner, I have no doubt that the Committee would have examined it carefully. He did not introduce relevant new evidence. Had he persuaded us that the Commissioner's proceedings were flawed in some way, I am sure that the Committee would have reopened the inquiry. He did not persuade us that the manner in which the Commissioner's inquiries were conducted was at fault. Had Mr. Hamilton persuaded us that the Commissioner's conclusions were such that no reasonable Commissioner could have reached them, we would have reopened the inquiry. He did not persuade us of that. His case was, in essence, that the Commissioner had heard all the witnesses and read all the papers, but came up with the wrong answer.
I have explained to the House that, in the unique circumstances of the case, a Select Committee is wholly unsuited to undertaking the investigative role which a full rehearing of the inquiry undertaken by the Commissioner inevitably would have involved. However, the Committee recognises that this case has highlighted the need to consider some of its procedures and to define them more clearly, in particular the Commissioner's responsibilities and those of the Committee. It is our intention to report to the House on those matters in due course.
I want to place on record the fact that this House owes a great deal of gratitude to an Officer of the House, Sir Gordon Downey, for the skill and care with which he has carried out an inquiry of enormous complexity. He served this House well as Comptroller and Auditor General and he has now served it extremely well as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I also thank Mr. Nigel Pleming QC, who acted as counsel to Sir Gordon's inquiry and as a specialist adviser to the Committee.
When Mr. Hamilton withdrew from his libel action in the courts, he said that he would accept the Commissioner's judgment on the allegations. On the "Today" programme he said:
I'm going to put all the material which relates to me in this libel action, before the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, who used to be the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is perfectly capable of assessing this evidence".
In another part of the interview, he said:
I will seek the opportunity to have this matter considered by the Commissioner for Standards in the House of Commons, who will be able to take a measured view".
Finally, he said:
I have absolute confidence that I will be vindicated in a matter of weeks by Sir Gordon Downey".
Neither the Committee nor the Commissioner has vindicated Mr. Hamilton. He now seeks to discredit the findings of both the Committee and the Commissioner. I ask the House to uphold our conclusions and to approve the seventh and eighth reports of the Committee.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: It is clear that there are extremely strong feelings about this matter on both sides of the House, not least within the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges itself. I congratulate and thank all members of the Committee for their work. They have had to conduct their examination in the glare of publicity and media interest, but they were not distracted from their responsibilities. The responsibilities have been heavy, because nothing less than the reputation and the integrity of the House is at stake. Important as is the reputation of individuals, the House's reputation and integrity and its ability to regulate itself are also important.
I want to make it clear from the outset that Conservative Members absolutely do not condone any conduct that falls below that which the House is entitled to expect from its Members. The work of the Committee, in its various reports, has shown that some hon. Members on this side of the House, and on the other side, engaged in such conduct. It is true that Conservative Members have paid the price for their conduct, but their behaviour

has affected the standing of the House, of the Conservative party and of public life. I wish to place it on record that we most sincerely regret that consequence.

Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not recall any Labour Members being accused in that report. Will the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) clear up that point?

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but a matter of argument.

Mrs. Shephard: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Labour Members had to face investigation by the Commissioner and by the Committee. That is a matter of record. It is true also, of course, that one of his colleagues is currently suspended by the House. His colleague has appeared before the House, and other hon. Members remain suspended. It is therefore true that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had to be investigated both by the Commissioner and by the Committee.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that we would not be having today's debate without the establishment of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in July 1994, by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). That Committee was given the following terms of reference:
To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities and to make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life.
Subsequently, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has stated his personal determination to ensure the highest standards of behaviour in the Conservative party. As part of the wider reform and renewal of the Conservative party, we shall ensure that no one individual will ever again demean the reputation of either the House or the party. We shall establish an ethics and integrity committee—the full details of which will be announced next year—to rule on cases of misconduct. Conservative Members intend to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life at all levels—including, of course, in local government and public bodies.
In the reports, the Committee itself recognises the limitations of its own role. When the conduct of those who are not hon. Members has a material bearing on judgments made on those who are, the Committee is clearly not empowered to act. As the Committee states in its seventh report:
We recognise that, in practice, the powers of the House to punish non-Members are limited. In a future report we shall offer advice to the House on appropriate penalties and sanctions for Members, former Members and other persons involved in unacceptable behaviour.
The Committee also makes it clear, in paragraph 10 of its eighth report, that the scale and scope of the report are
wholly unlike anything envisaged by the House when it created the new system for examining complaints against the conduct of Members and appointed a Commissioner for Standards.
Normally—if one can use that word in this context—the onus would have been on an individual complainant to submit evidence supporting any complaint to the Commissioner. In this case, however, the


Commissioner—following a statement to the House by Madam Speaker—was asked to define the allegations and assemble the evidence.
The Committee has consequently concluded that it will need to examine further whether there should be an appeal against the Commissioner's findings or the Select Committee's conclusions, except in consideration by the House. That is welcome. The fact that the Committee was unable to produce a unanimous report on that vitally important matter, despite the very best efforts of all its members and its Chairman, poses the question whether it has been the most appropriate vehicle for the task. That is a question that will have to be tackled by the entire House, because, as I said, at stake is not only the reputation of individuals but the principle of natural justice, and the House's ability to regulate itself.

On the case of Mr. Hamilton—[Interruption.]

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the right hon. Lady deals with the particular case, will she endorse the view expressed by the Committee Chairman, that the Commissioner is the proper person to conduct the inquisitorial proceedings that were conducted in this case, and that no Select Committee would be appropriate for that task?

Mrs. Shephard: I shall quote later in my speech from the Committee's report, which seems to call into question the inquisitorial process. I will therefore not answer the right hon. Gentleman's question now, but will tackle the issue later.
In paragraph 7 of the eighth report—which the Chairman has already quoted—the Committee has ruled that Neil Hamilton's
conduct fellseriously and persistently below the standards which the House is entitled to expect of its Members. Had Mr. Hamilton still been a Member we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House. These conclusions are justified by paragraph 6 alone.
The report makes it clear that Mr. Hamilton accepted that he had failed to register a number of interests—which, of course, were serious breaches of the rules of the House.
The Committee's clear statement puts an end to what has been a difficult matter for the House and a personal tragedy for Mr. Hamilton. The former Member for Tatton has endured considerable public opprobrium, and he now faces the end of his chosen career. He will not stand on the official Conservative party candidates list again.
The Committee has been able to draw a line under the affair, and both sides of the House are indebted to it for that. However, the case of Mr. Hamilton—in respect of Mr. Al Fayed's allegations against him—precisely highlights the limitations of the Committee's role.
In paragraph 3 of the eighth report, the Commissioner is quoted:
This was a parliamentary inquiry and there was no attempt to replicate the procedures of a court action … The approach was inquisitorial, not adversarial. Its sole purpose was to arrive at the truth, not to achieve a `conviction'.
Given the effects on Mr. Hamilton's life and future, however, he would have had more rights in calling witnesses and producing evidence to support his case

against the allegations made against him by Mr. Al Fayed had it been a court action. He would also have had a right of appeal—something that he has been most specifically denied by the entire procedure.

Mr. Tom Levitt: The right hon. Lady has told the House that Mr. Hamilton will not appear again on a list of Conservative candidates. By what inquisitorial method within the Conservative party has that decision been reached?

Mrs. Shephard: I do not have to answer the hon. Gentleman about matters that take place within the Conservative party.
The House will wish to examine the important questions raised by the Committee's own limitations. It cannot be right that anyone is denied simple natural justice by a procedure of the House or the Committee, and the House itself should be concerned so to reform matters that that cannot happen again. That is something for the future.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What weight should we give to Mr. Neil Hamilton's decision to withdraw from his libel action against The Guardian, which initially triggered the procedure?

Mrs. Shephard: The Committee will have drawn its own conclusion on that matter. I think, however, that no weight should be attached specifically to Mr. Hamilton's decision on the matter. I am concerned about the way in which the Committee's procedures reflect upon the House's ability to deal with matters affecting its own reputation.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Should not some weight be given to that fact in so far as two people—Mr. Greer and Mr. Grylls—lied in 1989 and 1990 to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, in writing in the case of Mr. Grylls and during oral evidence in the case of Mr. Greer?

Mrs. Shephard: I have no comment to make on that. Any kind of dissembling or lying is obviously regrettable and not acceptable. That is one of the things that the Committee uncovered.
I have accepted that certain Conservative Members have fallen below the standards of conduct appropriate for Members of Parliament. Without exception, they have paid a heavy price, but it should not be forgotten that such conduct is not the prerogative of this party.
As I said, there are very strong feelings on both sides of the House and on all sides of the argument. While recognising those and the effect on individuals of the limitations of the Committee's role in this case, we accept the reports, but we expect that the Committee and the House will bend their efforts to a reform of their procedures, so that those limitations will be corrected.

Mr. Tony Benn: I served on the Select Committee on Privileges for 10 years, and I greatly regret to have to tell the House that I am unable to support the recommendation before us. I shall explain why.
My uneasiness about the report centres on a number of matters, some of which have been aired. The first is the method of inquiry, which was secret. However one looks at it, it was in many ways a judicial inquiry into the conduct of a Member of Parliament who was denied representation. Thirty-seven years ago, I appeared before the Privileges Committee and sought to be represented. That request was denied, because the Committee does not work that way.
Secondly, I am uneasy because the Committee sub-contracted its judgment to the Commissioner. It is no good saying, "We have found nothing to add or subtract," because by doing that, the Committee sub-contracted its judgment to the Commissioner, who also sat in secret.
Thirdly, the scope of the inquiry is far too narrow. It does not deal with wider questions that I shall outline, and the recommendations are too limited.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes over that point, saying that the Committee has somehow sub-contracted its work, I should point out that what the Committee did was follow exactly the terms of the resolution passed by the House in the previous Parliament. That is the fact of the matter, not the construction that the right hon. Gentleman has put on events.

Mr. Benn: It is a matter for the House to determine whether the Committee would have been entitled to go further. I was thrown off the Committee three years ago because I was not prepared to sit on a secret Committee considering matters of this kind. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman voted for my removal—I would be surprised if he had not. I have held the view for a very long time that Committees dealing with individual cases should not meet in secret. That is a view that I now reaffirm.
I have no brief for Mr. Hamilton. What he did was utterly disreputable, so I have no complaint about what was said about him, but one thought occurs to me: did he break the law? I say that because the one thing that the House of Commons has totally failed to deal with throughout this matter is its own failure to lay down standards for all Members of Parliament. That is the issue that I wish the Committee had found time to consider.
What Mr. Hamilton did may or may not be widespread; I do not want to go into that. It may or may not extend to all parties; I do not want to go into that. Certainly, the sale of peerages has been known. It is a problem that has to be viewed in a very broad context. However, the whole debate has been overtaken by a wider question—not just cash for questions but cash for politics. On what condition should money be made available for political action, either by an individual or by others?
We have heard all the arguments about self-regulation. Self-regulation means, in effect, that we decide on an arbitrary basis instead of laying down the law as to what should or should not be acceptable and leaving judges to determine it. If Parliament passes a law saying what is and is not acceptable, that is self-regulation, but the determination falls to the judges, not to the House. There was always a problem with this in election cases which were transmitted to an election court instead of an election committee. A majority party always has a sort of interest in protecting its own members, which is why election cases are no longer handled in that way.
I am not in favour of Sir Patrick Neill being the man responsible for making recommendations of this kind. It is for the House to decide, on a considered judgment based on draft legislation. I shall take only a minute or two to try to identify what the law could have been that could have prevented this happening.
Just as a corrupt practice is defined in an election, so a corrupt practice should be defined for a Member of Parliament. What the House determined to do in legislation would be a matter for it to decide, but if someone were charged with a corrupt practice as a Member of Parliament, the matter could go to a court to determine. The person concerned would be able to present his case.
I have committed every known offence. I have been thrown out by an election court, but at least I had the opportunity to present my case, which I was not allowed to do to the Privileges Committee. I spoke for a week, which is the longest speech I have ever made in my life, the House will be glad to hear. At the end, two judges said that I was disqualified, as I had committed an even more serious offence—my blood had gone blue.
Has anyone ever looked at the list of disqualifications? It is as long as your arm, as we are always adding to it. Certain relationships should be disqualifying relationships. If it turned out that a Member of Parliament was working for Al Fayed or someone else and that was listed as a disqualifying office, that Member would be out, but it would be determined by law and not by the arbitrary proceedings of a secret Committee that operated without protection for those who were charged.

Mr. Campbell—Savours: rose—

Mr. Benn: I should like to finish. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that I have a long interest in this matter.
There must be transparency. The complaint about Mr. Hamilton is straightforward. If it had been known what he was up to, he would have been dealt with years ago. Indeed, the real remedy for Mr. Hamilton was his electorate, who dealt with him. That is the proper way to deal with people who have not done anything illegal but who have done something unacceptable.
I have never believed that the House had the right to throw out Members—none of us is here because the House wanted us, but we are here because our electors sent us here. The proper remedy for inappropriate behaviour is the electorate, and the proper remedy for illegal behaviour is the courts. Somehow, in the middle of all this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton—under—Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), a distinguished body of people and a Commissioner hanging around to help him, have fallen between two stools.
I shall outline briefly what I think should be done. There should be a public register of gifts from individuals and organisations. Organisations and companies should have a ballot before they give money, just as trade unions do. Why should a company be able to give money without consulting shareholders when trade unions have to have a ballot? Companies should register any gifts and services that they offer to parties and to individuals.
Similarly, individuals and parties should be required to register the gifts and services that they have received—the amount and the recipient. I have said this before, but I


repeat it now—this information should appear on the ballot paper. Voters should know the interests of candidates. The electorate are the proper remedy for inappropriate behaviour.
If the people of Tatton or anywhere else want to vote for someone engaged in something that is not illegal and that person has listed all his relationships, it is up to them to decide whether they want him. If it says on the ballot paper that the candidate is a director of 15 companies or is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, they will decide whether or not they want him. We are really discussing the rights of the electors, not the rights of Parliament. There should also be a cap on election law.
I am broadening the argument a little, but it is obvious in the light of what has happened recently that the question of cash for politics is more interesting and relevant than the issue of cash for questions.
It is not a matter of trust—I have never been inclined in my life to distrust people—but a question of law and responsibility. As a member of the Labour party, I would like to know who gives money to the Labour party, what they have given and when they gave it. That does not require legislation, but is a matter for me as a member of the Labour party. The shadow Leader of the House said that Mr. Hamilton would not be on another Conservative candidates list, and that is a matter for the Conservative party.
We are dealing here with transparency and the law. If we had had a combination of a clear statement of the law, judges to determine whether the law had been broken and transparency in financial relations, the Hamilton case would never have occurred. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee, whom I deeply admire, has moved his report. I shall not vote against it, of course, but I cannot support what I regard as a classic failure by the House of Commons to do its proper job—to lay down the proper and improper things that a Member of Parliament can do.

Mr. Tom King: I can start by agreeing with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on at least one point. I have always regarded cash for politics as infinitely more significant than cash for questions. Anyone who understands parliamentary procedures knows that cash for questions was much closer to money by false pretences, implying without much substance that some influence had been bought.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield has always believed—very consistently—that this House is quite incapable of regulating itself and that these matters should be taken away from it. He believes that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges—or any successor—is incapable of discharging these responsibilities. I stand here as a member of the former Nolan committee, but I am speaking today in a personal capacity and not on behalf of any other member of the Committee. However, anyone reading today's edition of The Times will have seen the views of Professor Anthony King—also a member of the Nolan committee—which did not come across as a wholesale endorsement of the approach taken by the House so far.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on another point. As the House chose to divert significantly from the Nolan committee's unanimous proposals as to the structure that the House should establish, I shall not support the motion. I do that with some sadness.
We are debating the seventh and eighth reports of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Until now, the structure of the Committee has worked well in dealing with different sorts of cases. I except from that the case dealt with in the sixth report—that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who claimed that he twice asked to appear before the Committee before the judgment was made against him and before he was suspended. I do not know why the Committee refused to hear him. I hope that a member of the Committee will tell us why, because I am uneasy about that.
We sought to establish a system to replace the previous, manifestly inadequate system. The previous Privileges Committee was, at one stage, 17 strong with no investigative functions in support. Two hon. Members found themselves facing a sort of star chamber, and one spent more than five hours without representation appearing before 17 colleagues. Obviously, that was most unsatisfactory. The Nolan report unanimously recommended that a system be constructed which could be seen to accept the differences in the nature of Parliament. That system would need to be capable of dealing with many issues that are not crimes outside this House, but which are breaches of the standard of conduct that this House ought to expect of its Members if it is to continue to be entitled to claim the privileges which you, Madam Speaker, rightly claim for this House at the opening of each Session.
The committee set out not to put the matter in the hands of the courts—for the reasons that I have given—nor to appoint a new regulator who would be totally independent, sovereign and outside any control of this House, with one exception. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield touched on one important matter. One of the weaknesses at present is that we do not have adequately defined crimes of bribery of a Member of Parliament and corruption. I am glad that the Government have responded to the recommendations that those crimes should be established, making them a matter for a court of law. However, to deal with matters that fall short of crimes but which are totally unacceptable in a Parliament of our standing, reputation and credibility, another structure should be established.
We recommended the establishment of a new Standards and Privileges Committee and a new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We proposed that the Commissioner should have security of tenure, but should report to the Committee, which would be sovereign. We recommended that the Standards and Privileges Committee should be a small but very senior Committee—we recommended that it should consist of up to seven very senior Members. Historians here may know that the original Privileges Committee was chaired by the Prime Minister, with the Leader of the Opposition representing Opposition parties.
The situation has changed. The Leader and shadow Leader of the House served on the previous Privileges Committee, and for the first reports of the present Committee. We recommended that that should continue. It is no secret that there is great disappointment that the


Leader of the House has decided not to continue to serve. A unique feature of the job of Leader of the House is that it is not a party political appointment. The Leader is the one member of the Government who must speak for the whole of Parliament. It is important that we have someone in that position on the Committee. When the right hon. Lady previously served as shadow Leader of the House, she found that she could discharge her responsibilities, recognising her duty to Parliament as well as to her party.
I have heard it said that some of those involved in previous Committees believe that, in the final analysis, it will be impossible for this Committee not to end up on political lines. I hope that that is not true, but one of the weaknesses of the present Committee—here I am critical of the Government—is the inclusion of no fewer than three new Members. I did not know who the three new members of the Committee were until they were pointed out to me. I met one last week, and I believe that the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) are also members. I have never seen them before—they are new Members. I wish them well, but this is not fair to them, nor right for the House. Not only do we not have very senior Members; we have three new Members who have never been in the House before. Part of the Committee's task is to command confidence in the House among colleagues, and part of that comes from the reputation that hon. Members have established over the years among their colleagues.
The first weakness in the previous structure was the lack of proper independent investigation, and we proposed the creation of the post of Commissioner. I pay tribute to Sir Gordon Downey for the way in which he has discharged his duty. We never envisaged that the Commissioner would make a major finding—certainly, he might do so in cases where a malicious and unjustified complaint had been made, or in minor cases, but we never envisaged that he would be the final arbiter of major cases.
In that situation, we envisaged that if there was a case to answer, the Commissioner would put the case to a Sub-Committee, which would take it from there. The Sub-Committee would produce its findings and there would then be an opportunity for the Member to appeal to the full Committee. The House decided not to accept the recommendation to have a small Committee, although the Standing Orders indicate that there should be a Sub-Committee. My understanding is that the Sub-Committee still has not been appointed. The Standards and Privileges Committee is in breach of the Standing Order, which is a mistake. It would provide these tiers: the Sub-Committee, an appeal to the full Committee and then, if necessary, a final appeal to the whole House.
In this case, Sir Gordon Downey was instructed to reach a conclusion—I understand the remit to which he worked. He then said that his
duty was to arrive at the truth and not achieve conviction".
If the Commissioner arrives at the truth with what he describes as compelling evidence, but says that he has not arrived at conviction; and if the Committee then says that it will not add to or subtract from what he says; and even if one has read the full text and the amendment, in which the Committee deletes the statement "endorse the finding", it is not difficult to see why many people,

both inside and outside the House, begin to become worried about natural justice, especially as there was no opportunity for cross-examination or appeal as was recommended.
The House must now decide. I have made some critical remarks about the Committee, but I have considerable sympathy for its members, because I would be sorry to be faced with the awfulness of this case and some of the characters involved in it. The main witness had already been accused and convicted by the Department of Trade and Industry report of not being a reliable witness, yet he was the main prosecution witness against Mr. Hamilton. It was an appallingly difficult case, but no matter how difficult the case, the Committee has to reach as far as it can to be seen to achieve natural justice. It is also essential that, out of this case, we ensure that we maintain a system that commands public confidence.
It is true that some of the events, some of the happenings, some of the standards, some of the practices and some of the consequences of the vast invasion of lobbying that hit the House in the 1980s posed many problems—there were uncertainties and grey areas in which people were not sure what was expected of them. Now, because of the work of the Nolan committee, the House's response to that and the work of Sir Gordon Downey, we have cleared up a great deal of murky territory. Many perfectly honourable Members of Parliament who did not know what was expected of them now have a far better understanding.
I was pleased—and I am sure that new Labour Members are, too—by the acceptance of the Nolan committee recommendation that there should be proper induction training for new Members of Parliament and a proper code of conduct, so that hon. Members should be told what is expected of them. You, Madam Speaker, gave warm support to that because you understand its importance. Those improvements have meant—God willing—that we shall never see a case like this again and that most future cases will be of a minor correctional nature. None the less, in case there is another such case, the House must be ready and ensure that it has a system that meets the need.
If I may echo the words of Professor Anthony King, the House has to decide whether to have
an investigative or a judicial review function".
Is the Committee to be only a rubber stamp to the Commissioner? If the Commissioner submits a report, is the Committee's vote one of confidence in the Commissioner? Is the Committee to be faced with the resignation of the Commissioner if it does not accept the report? Or does the Committee have to accept that—no matter how complex, difficult or controversial the case—it has not a judicial review function but an investigative function and therefore has to spend time on difficult cases?
I believe that we must adopt that approach. In the face of this most difficult case, we must not abandon the structure, but I beg the House to look again at the Nolan committee's recommendations. They were made on an all-party basis, and the politicians and non-politicians serving on the committee tried genuinely to find what we thought was the fairest system, but the House departed from our recommendations. With no disrespect to those who gallantly served in difficult circumstances, I beg the House to look at the membership of the Committee and


to raise the seniority of the Committee back to its proper standing. We need the structure of a Commissioner to investigate; a Sub-Committee to carry out further investigation if necessary and to reach conclusions; and the Committee and the House to provide the court of appeal.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have been a member of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges since the start of the new Parliament. I thought that both the speech of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) contained a great deal of wisdom after the event. The Committee faced the difficulty of operating under clear guidelines laid down in a resolution of the House, yet it appears that the complaint from several quarters, both inside the House and among members of the fourth estate, is that, in interpreting that remit in as fair-minded a way as we could, we have not come up with a conclusion that people feel is circular, tied up and completely to their satisfaction.

Mr. Benn: That comment underlines my point that the House has made a mistake. I said that when I was expelled and when I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, but I absolutely failed to persuade the House that the matter should be tackled on a broader basis.

Mr. Kennedy: I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I do not necessarily dissent from it.
My other point, by way of a brief response to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, is that, although I acknowledge the sincerity and seniority with which he delivered his remarks about the Committee's membership, it has been my experience that the Committee comprises a group of impeccably fair-minded people. I say that especially in respect of the two members who happen to be Conservative Members—that is not how I think of them in connection with their membership of the Committee—but who have nevertheless been at odds with certain of the procedures and certain of the decisions. Therefore, I do not feel that the right hon. Gentleman's comments about seniority in terms of membership of the House of Commons are particularly apposite.
What we are looking for in a Committee of this sort is commonsensical judgment. I remember a journalist telling me a few years ago that we did not need all the paraphernalia—we just needed to apply the Private Eye test. I asked what that was and was told, "If it appeared in Private Eye, would you be embarrassed by it? If so, you should not be doing it in the first place." There is much common sense and wisdom in that remark, but it is not, unfortunately, an approach available to the Committee.
As one of the two Scots on the Committee, I would have to say that, in Scots law, the not proven verdict is one that has its critics. It is now invariably taken to mean, "Guilty, but unable to stick it on the accused." Not proven was essentially the verdict arrived at by the Committee on the central question of the cash-for-questions controversy. Although not a lawyer, I happen to be a defender of the

not proven verdict in the Scottish legal context, and I would also defend its applicability in the context of the report that we are debating. However, it should not have to be defended in quite the same way on a future occasion.

Mr. Hogg: As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is saying that the Committee was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hamilton was guilty of taking the money. If that is what he is saying—incidentally, I would agree with him—the House should not support the Committee's recommendations tonight.

Mr. Terry Lewis: The House decided the remit, not the Committee.

Mr. Kennedy: As the hon. Gentleman is saying, I would have to refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the clear parameters set out by the Parliamentary Commissioner himself when he set about his task. He stated that we were not looking for the burden of proof as if it were a legal case heard in court, as Mr. Hamilton has argued for; in Sir Gordon's telling phrase, we were looking at "the balance of probability". That is what led him to conclude that there was a clear decision to be reached, and it was on the balance of probabilities that the Committee decided to endorse that decision.
Leaving aside the central issue of cash for questions, which is what the media descended on but was not the sole object of the Committee's remit, I should stress that Mr. Hamilton has admitted to a number of omissions, including the failure to disclose Harrods' hospitality and various introductory commissions and consultancy fees. That is what led the Committee to the conclusion that his behaviour fell "seriously and persistently" below the standard that the House can expect of its Members. The Committee said:
Had Mr. Hamilton still been a Member we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House.
What led the Committee to that decision were the facts—quite apart from cash for questions—to which Mr. Hamilton admitted in the full public gaze.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has just pointed out, between 1985 and about 1990 the culture of the times was such that many Members accepted hospitality from companies without declaring it. The practice was widespread. Indeed, our own Prime Minister has accepted hospitality at Gleneagles and a trip on Concorde, the Deputy Prime Minister ditto, and the President of the Board of Trade likewise. What is more, our Prime Minister recently accepted hospitality at Silverstone—yet none of that was declared in the Register of Members' Interests. Hamilton's was hardly a unique case; what he did was not unreasonable in the culture that prevailed at the time.

Mr. Kennedy: I am not so sure about that. We all make mistakes from day to day in terms of what we do or do not disclose or accept as hospitality. That is mere human fallibility. If, however, the hon. Lady will look at the report in detail and read up on the sequence and successive nature of what Mr. Hamilton was accepting,
she will see that it was an open and shut case. I do not think that it bears comparison with what a great many other Members, let alone the Prime Minister, get up to.
It was clear to those of us who served on the Committee—we heard it from the horse's mouth—that the pattern of accepting certain things and not declaring certain things persisted for several years. Had I been a junior Minister in the Government of the day, and had I had a pointed conversation with the Deputy Prime Minister about allegations that had appeared in The Guardian and other newspapers, I should have been a fool not to be up front about my activities at that point. Yet it is clear that there was a fundamental lack of candour—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made it clear in his letter that he was not seeking information from Mr. Hamilton about what had gone on in the past; he wanted to know whether anything was going on in the present. Disgracefully, Sir Gordon Downey reinterpreted my right hon. Friend's letter to imply that my right hon. Friend had asked Mr. Hamilton whether he had ever had any such relationships. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is being fair on that point.

Mr. Kennedy: I think that I am being fair. Anyone questioned in such circumstances about his activities, given the national media interest that had developed, should not answer simply in respect of the here and now. He should answer with details of past relationships with certain people. Still, the hon. Gentleman's point is a telling one, because it goes to the heart of the difficulty that faced our Committee.
Anyone can look at evidence and form any conclusions he likes. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has made a harsh comment about Sir Gordon Downey with which I would not agree. The crucial issue is that it was upon cash for questions that Neil Hamilton was being judged, yet it was the Parliamentary Commissioner appointed by the House and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges that ended up, perversely, in the dock.
The conclusions that we reached were therefore neither the "political stitch-up" alleged by Mr. Hamilton, nor the "fudge" pronounced by his successor as the Member for Tatton. The Committee merely recognised Sir Gordon Downey's description of his role and remit, which was as follows:
This was a parliamentary inquiry and there was no attempt to replicate the procedures of a court action … Its sole purpose was to arrive at the truth, not to achieve a `conviction'.
As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said earlier, anyone who complains about that now should have complained about it a long time ago, when the process was set in motion.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I hope that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) will have his say in the course of the debate—we shall listen to him with great interest—does the hon. Gentleman agree that the electors of Tatton rejected Neil Hamilton so overwhelmingly at the general election because of cash for questions—which issue has not been proven in the report? So a man's reputation has been shattered.
Why did not the Liberal Democrats contest the Tatton constituency at the election? Why did not the Labour party contest it? Was it not fought on the subject of cash for questions?

Mr. Kennedy: That election was contested on the issue that became known as sleaze, of which cash for questions formed a major part—but it was not the only component. It is perfectly clear that an awful lot of other wrongdoing had been going on for quite some time as well. As for the psephology of Tatton, I do not want to go into it this evening, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
I am clear in my own conscience about the decision that the Committee reached, but I am less clear about the procedures within which we operated. There must be a rethink, not least about the issue of an appeal mechanism.
In his recent Dimbleby memorial lecture, Lord Nolan pointed out how his committee had recommended a three—stage process: the initial inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissioner; consideration of the report by the full Committee; any subsequent appeal to be handled by a small Sub-Committee. As the Chairman of the Committee has pointed out, the Hamilton case is but the first of two dozen to have triggered the appeal process; and for reasons of complexity and of the resources available to us, most of us felt that we were simply not equipped to conduct such a process. That is not an abdication of responsibility: it is a recognition of reality.
Like the Committee, I hope that further consideration will be given to finding a procedure allowing a satisfactory appeal against the Commissioner's findings. My experience on the Committee is that such a procedure is unlikely to be discovered within Westminster alone. We should consider moving away from parliamentary self-regulation. The pre-election Privileges Committee was riven by party politics and partisan advantage. The post-election set-up was fair minded and cross party, yet its conclusions seem to have satisfied few.
In future, the Commons may have to refer any alleged breaches of parliamentary standards to an outside judicial system of inquiry with its own independent and in-built appeal mechanism. Only when that process is complete can a definitive verdict be reported to you, Madam Speaker, with the House then resolving upon the appropriate course of action. Alternatively, Members of Parliament, like local councillors, should be made subject to the usual course of criminal proceedings.
Either way it is hard to see how Parliament can much longer avoid legislating on what constitutes unethical or illegal behaviour on the part of its Members. The status quo may simply yield more not proven verdicts of this type—verdicts unique to the Scottish legal process and, I suggest, best left there, where they properly belong.

Mr. Tom Levitt: I rise, as one of the newer Members of Parliament who has served on the Standards and Privileges Committee, to defend the report—warts and all.
First, I want to consider in whose interests the Committee operates. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the Committee operates in the best interests of the House. Our brief was to ensure that the House benefited from our judgment, and I believe that we have fulfilled that brief.
For that purpose, it was necessary for us to be representative of the House. By being a cross—party group and by including old established Members—I am sorry, older established Members—and new Members, the Committee reflected the make-up of the House.
Arguably, we should have included more new Members to reflect the make-up of the House more accurately. I shall not argue that strenuously, but in my opinion it was beneficial that those of us who served on the Committee as new Members had, until only a few weeks before our appointment, been members of the public. We had watched what was going on. We had made our judgments about this place and at the time we were talking to our respective constituents and gaining their impressions of this place and of the damage that was being done to its reputation by the things that were being said and done by Members whose cases came before the Committee.
We have started to perform our role of setting standards and of rooting out abuse of privilege. In the report, we commented on our proceedings and suggested ways in which we might make progress. The system is not perfect and the proceedings are not yet fully tried and tested, but we operated within the rules set down to guide us.
As the current hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said a few days ago, the appearance of wrongdoing can be as damaging as wrongdoing itself. He said that in a different context, but how right it is regarding our investigation into former Members. When one Member of the House is caught out in the way that those former Members have been, a process of corrosion starts which affects all of us. That means that we must demand the highest ethical standards. The worst offence that a Member can commit is to disgrace the House.
I shall now discuss our eighth report. We said in earlier reports, considering others of the five former hon. Members who were particularly found by Sir Gordon to warrant our judgment on them, that accepting cash for questions was wrong. It was done in various ways, but in every case we said that it was wrong. Where it was proven, to the satisfaction of the Committee, that Members had accepted cash for questions, there would have been suspension from the House had they still been Members, and most of those Members who were found to have done so accepted that judgment. One did not, and we asked Sir Gordon Downey to carry out the investigation.
Sir Gordon spent hours in cross—examination, read volumes of evidence and produced a report many hundreds of pages long. He found compelling evidence of the acceptance of cash for questions. He did not establish absolute proof. Perhaps he did not establish what had happened beyond all reasonable doubt, but we were not applying a criminal standard of judgment because we were not operating as a criminal court. Mr. Anthony King, who has been mentioned more than once in the debate, says in The Times today that
the committee would … exercise a broadly 'judicial review' function and reject the Parliamentary Commissioner's report only if his procedures had been seriously flawed or his findings manifestly unsafe and unsatisfactory … It has clearly concluded that Sir Gordon Downey's procedures were not seriously flawed and his findings not unsafe and unsatisfactory.
He says that we were reluctant to use that form of words. I am happy to use that form of words because that is what we found.
I accept some of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said about making bribery of Members of Parliament a criminal offence and making the acceptance of bribes by a Member of Parliament a criminal offence, but that is not the situation that we are in and that is not the background against which we made our judgments and Sir Gordon carried out his investigation.
I repeat that this was not a court of law, so we did not have to apply legal standards of proof. In fact, the House changed the law to allow Mr. Hamilton to test his case against legal standards of proof in a court of law. The fact that he did not eventually do so is not the Committee's concern. That was where the law came into the case.
The nature of the allegations regarding cash for questions was such that it would always be difficult, if not impossible, to establish absolute proof. Conclusions were reached only on the basis of the testimony of individuals close to the event, and in that case, in order to move further and further towards an absolute standard of proof, we would have been obliged to open a procedure that was potentially indefinite. We might always get closer and closer, but we could never reach an absolute standard of proof because of the nature of the allegations. Nevertheless, as Sir Gordon said, the evidence was compelling.
As hon. Members have said, however, it does not matter whether the proof was absolute in the specific case, given the Committee's role, for two reasons.
The first reason is that, as the hon. Member for Tatton said last week, the appearance of wrongdoing was bad enough. When that wrongdoing is "seriously and persistently" carried out—the phrase used in our report—it is even worse.
However, let us put the cash-for-questions issue aside for a moment. Sir Gordon Downey's report and the Committee's report set out 11 allegations against Mr. Hamilton, only two of which relate to cash for questions. Sir Gordon found two of the remainder "not proven". That leaves seven allegations that were substantiated, over and above the cash-for-questions allegations—allegations of misrepresentation, of failure to register interests, of taking commission payments without declaration and of being disingenuous, to say the least, in attitude towards a Minister of the Crown and the Cabinet Secretary.
Those were offences against the House, and the decision of the Committee outlined in paragraph 7 that
Mr. Hamilton's conduct fell seriously and persistently below the standards which the House is entitled to expect of its Members … we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House
was passed unanimously. The report shows that there was no dissent or abstention: there was agreement without division on that paragraph as it related to the allegations other than those concerning cash for questions.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman is going on about a red herring. The whole point about the procedure was that when the Commissioner could agree on the facts there was no appeal. Clearly, in this case the facts were not disputed. Mr. Hamilton and all the others accepted that they had not observed the rules and we simply left that matter aside. The sad issue that the House must


confront this evening, whether it likes it or not, is that there was a procedure for an appeal against the Commissioner's verdict when the facts were not agreed.
Mr. Hamilton was entitled to exercise that appeal. He did so and his appeal was never properly heard. He appealed on the vital issue of whether he took money from Mr. Al Fayed. As a result of the behaviour of the majority of the Committee, no one will ever know whether Mr. Hamilton took money from Mr. Al Fayed and no one has ever been in a position to question Mr. Hamilton about it on behalf of the House, or to question Mr. Al Fayed, who would have been equally guilty had money passed hands in that way.

Mr. Levitt: That is not the point. The Committee was set up to serve the House and we said what standards of behaviour we expected. Whether or not all the allegations are proven to an absolute standard of proof, we said that Mr. Hamilton's behaviour was wholly unacceptable and he would have been suspended had he still been a Member. That is not in dispute. When we had the death sentence, someone could be found guilty on six charges and beheaded; it was immaterial whether they were found guilty on a seventh charge.
The Standards and Privileges Committee carried out its work diligently and at great length. Sir Gordon Downey went to painstaking lengths to produce a huge and utterly convincing report, which we examined for several months. We had three written rebuttals from Mr. Hamilton at various stages of the report and a lengthy two-and-a-half-hour contribution from him in person. It was an experience having Mr. Hamilton make a presentation before us that day. It was entertaining, skilful, slick and seductive, but it was empty. Nothing during those two and a half hours gave me or the majority of Committee members any reason to want to reopen the debate on Sir Gordon's report. Nothing that Mr. Hamilton said made us feel that Sir Gordon had the wrong end of the stick or had misinterpreted what was going on.
The House commanded us to carry out our deliberations within a reasonable period of time. That form of words appeared when the Committee was set up. We took more than a reasonable amount of time. Had we reopened the question and taken witnesses, we would not have seen an end to our deliberations. We had no reason to do that because we had no reason to doubt Sir Gordon's report.
As the hon. Member for Tatton said last week, the appearance of what was going on was what mattered. The appearance of wrongdoing in this case was total, and I stand by the Committee's report.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I intend to speak briefly without the help of interventions.
Something that is not in our report is the fact that no one has accused Neil Hamilton of doing anything as a Minister that would have made Mr. Al Fayed happy. In practice, most of the Al Fayed accusations were made because Ministers would not do what he wanted.
The eighth report clearly draws a line under paragraph 7. Of the broadsheets, excluding the Financial Times, The Guardian was the only newspaper to reflect in practice what the Committee had agreed. Most of the other commentaries, especially in the press, were on the

basis that the eighth paragraph had been used for the conclusion of paragraph 7. As the Committee Chairman said, the report says clearly that what we would have recommended for Neil Hamilton was based on paragraph 6, which is not the contentious part of the allegations taken through by the Commissioner or the Committee.
In simple terms—although this is a complicated matter—the Committee did not find Neil Hamilton guilty on paragraph 8. We did not overturn the Commissioner's work, but neither did we say that Mr. Hamilton should be recommended for punishment under paragraph 8. The fact that it is not material has been missed by many people.
Like the hon. Members against whom allegations were made in the seventh report, Neil Hamilton would have been acceptable as a Member of Parliament had he served a period of suspension, substantial or not.
Had the Committee wanted to recommend that someone was unfit for public life or that they should be struck off by their professional bodies, I have no doubt that we were capable of saying that. Because we did not, people in the House and outside should not believe that the Committee's recommendations went further than they would have done had those Members been re-elected at the last election.
My next point may be controversial. It relates to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). I think that he has rightly stayed away from these issues up to now. If he speaks tonight, I shall listen with great interest. When the House has disposed of our reports Nos. 7 and 8, I hope that the House authorities will consider whether the hon. Gentleman should be nominated to join the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, as he is not likely to be a Member for a number of Parliaments—he said that he would stand only once—and he should be able to bring a point of view that would be of value to the Committee.
To those who want to understand what has been going on, I commend the early pages of the first report, which spells out how the matter started and why it is an unusual case. I do not believe that in future we shall have to deal with general accusations thrown about by someone like Mr. Al Fayed—to whom I say, not in passing but specifically, that I extend my sympathy on the loss of his son. Mr. Al Fayed will not be repeated many times. He made accusations, a number of which were extremely serious. Some were untrue.
I also want to draw attention to what the Commissioner says on page 5 of the first report. He states in paragraph 33 that he wants also
to acknowledge that, but for The Guardian's persistence in pursuing its original investigations, many of these serious allegations would never have been brought into the open.
He goes on to say in paragraph 34—and this, I believe, the Press Complaints Commission should call for and invite The Guardian to comment on:
I cannot, however, view in the same light The Guardian's action in leaking extracts from the transcripts of oral evidence given to the inquiry. I repeat what I said in a press statement on 21 March 1997, namely that the selective publication of incomplete evidence was both inimical to the principle of natural justice and a gross breach of the trust placed in The Guardian as a party to the inquiry.
Those are not matters that the House should take up, but The Guardian and the Press Complaints Commission should consider them together.
On the issues before the House, I believe that the House is perfectly capable of considering recommendations from Sir Patrick Neill, as we did from the Nolan report. We are


capable of coming to conclusions and, if necessary, taking further evidence for the Committee after investigation by the Commissioner. The number of cases where Members or former Members seriously dispute facts after inquiries by the Commissioner will be non-existent or very limited. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be glad if hon. Members would desist from arguing with me at this time simply because it is doubtful whether they are going to be called. They are challenging the hon. Members whom I have called. [Interruption.] Yes, you are. You are looking at the list to see who has been called. You will desist from coming to my Chair.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. You have been challenging who I have called and complaining that I have called the Chairman of the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee has every right to be called, and to be called first. I will hear no more. Resume your seat and we shall continue with this debate.

Mr. Bottomley: The most important issue for us is to try to work in this House, not in the expectation that there will never be a time when any of us will transgress, but in the knowledge that we have a method of investigating complaints. I believe what has been said already—that the commissioner is the right person to test whether complaints need to be taken further.
My final major comment relates to the procedure of the Committee and the options open to hon. Members on it. During our deliberations, I pushed one issue to an oral vote, but not to the taking of names. The way in which the report came out reflects the contributions made by members of the Committee together. Those who put too much weight on the fact that we did not accept the words about endorsement in the draft Chairman's report are building too much on that. We could have arranged matters in such a way that the word "endorsed" never appeared in our deliberations or in the vote. We did not do that.
I believe that we are capable of raising the standard of behaviour of Members of Parliament. I believe that what happened during the 1980s was excessive. I believe that from now on, when hon. Members speak in the House it will be because they are saying something that they believe, although they may be wrong, or because they are saying something that is in the interests of their constituents, although they may be wrong, or something that they believe to be in the national interest, although they may be wrong, but it will not be because they have been getting benefits from people outside.
I make one final plea: could I please be invited to any meetings of Transport and General Workers Union members in this place? I have been a member of the union and of the House for 22 years, but as I was not sponsored by the union I have never been invited to a single meeting.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: ; I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in line 1, to leave out from "House" to end and add:

notes that, on an amendment proposed by the honourable Member for Workington, the Committee on Standards and Privileges resolved, nemine contradicente, not to endorse Sir Gordon Downey's findings in respect of Mr. Neil Hamilton; expresses its deep concern that the ultimate author of the grave allegations concerning cash payments, Mr. Al Fayed, was not called to give evidence before the Committee on oath in public; and believes that justice cannot be done until Mr. Al Fayed has been so called.
I must declare an interest in the debate at the outset: Neil Hamilton is a friend, and has been for many years, and I will not stand by and see an injustice done to a friend without speaking my mind. I hope that I shall not face too many serious consequences for so doing—but if one cannot speak one's mind in this place, where in the world can one do that?
I believe that Mr. Hamilton has been subjected to the most wicked, vicious witch hunt in the media—particularly in The Guardian newspaper, whose journalists have something to answer for. Nobody knows better than me that he has conducted himself throughout the past extraordinary months—which have been incredibly difficult for him, his wife and family—in a manner that is nothing short of magnificent. He has shown great courage and great determination—in part, it is his determination that got him into such trouble as he is accused of protesting too much. I think that he has acted with great dignity. To those who are concerned that he appears too much on television—on perhaps slightly down-market programmes—I would say that that illustrates the point that he made to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges: Neil Hamilton is unemployable. He has lost his seat in this place and has no prospect of employment elsewhere. The only way that he can keep a roof over his head is by diverting those talents that he displayed with such excellence in this place.
I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall endeavour to be brief—although I must confess that it will be difficult. This business is known to the public as the "cash for questions" affair. It is, therefore, proper that I should concentrate my remarks on the specific allegation that Neil Hamilton received cash, in whatever form, from the proprietor of Harrods, Mr. Fayed.
In answer to the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton—under—Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I assert that Mr. Hamilton has apologised. He is deeply apologetic for some of the errors of judgment that he made, and I have not heard him refer once to "parking offences". I do not dispute that Mr. Hamilton may have said that—if the right hon. Gentleman says he has, I shall leave it at that. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that Mr. Hamilton is extremely contrite and apologetic for his lapses of judgment.
It serves no purpose the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) claiming that Mr. Hamilton has committed the most heinous offences. The Prime Minister also has a catalogue of non-declarations. I do not wish to be too partisan, but I suggest to the House that it is not fair to criticise a former Member for taking hospitality when the Prime Minister did so also. The Prime Minister's response to not registering was to say, "They saw me on television." It is no use hon. Members bickering about it; that is a fair point.
I have sought to amend the motion before the House to draw attention to two important and connected issues. The first is the injustice to Neil Hamilton and the second is the cumulative damage done to the House by Mohammed Fayed, the proprietor of Harrods. I remind the House that the story began when The Guardian newspaper alleged that Neil Hamilton was paid £2,000 a time by Ian Greer for tabling parliamentary questions. The fact that he tabled rather fewer parliamentary questions—certainly fewer early-day motions—than the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is relevant only in the sense: why pay Mr. Hamilton if the hon. Member for Workington will do it for nothing? Which he did, I hasten to add—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: And more effectively.

Mr. Howarth: And more effectively, the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position.
It is an important point. However, the most important point is that an analysis of Ian Greer's accounts disproved beyond doubt that Neil Hamilton had received payment from Mr. Fayed via Ian Greer, and that charge, which was the essence of The Guardian's charge in October 1994, was dismissed by Sir Gordon Downey. The accusation that Neil Hamilton had received gift vouchers from Harrods was also dismissed.
As the legal action was proceeding, Mr. Hamilton sought the permission of Parliament to change the law so that he could take the case to court. He took it to court, and Mr. Fayed then changed the allegations about cash and said that, rather than being paid by Ian Greer Associates, it was paid face to face. Neil Hamilton pointed out that at one of the meetings where these cash payments were supposed to have been made by Mr. Fayed, Timothy O'Sullivan, a man of undoubted integrity, was also present. Mr. Fayed had forgotten that one, so it was no longer possible to argue that Neil Hamilton had been paid face to face. What happened then? Ah, we come to the brown envelopes. The brown envelopes were the means by which the payment was made. Mr. Fayed is a man most familiar with the transmission of cash through brown envelopes. I know because I have a constituent who used to be in his employ, and he tells me all about it. It is not all dishonourable stuff. It is the largesse of the man. He has much of it. Nobody knows where it comes from but he has much of it.
We found that Neil Hamilton had not been paid through Ian Greer. Sir Gordon agreed with that. He had not been paid face to face, because an independent witness proved that that could not have happened, at least on that particular date, and therefore must have undermined Mr. Fayed's credibility. Finally, at the door of the court, at the 59th minute of the 11th hour, we had the third allegation: that the cash in the brown envelopes was collected from the desk of Fayed's Park lane offices and couriered to Neil Hamilton's home. That is the changing scenario against which the judgments were to be made.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and inverness, West referred to the verdict in Scotland of not proven. I say to the Chairman of the Committee, it is a cardinal principle of English law—not Scottish law—that a man is innocent unless and until proved otherwise. In its report, the

Committee has failed to produce the evidence that Neil Hamilton received money from a very powerful business man.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend and I sit on the Home Affairs Select Committee. He will recall that he has heard the Home Office Minister arguing in terms that where policemen face dismissal for serious disciplinary offences, the standard of proof should be the criminal one—beyond a reasonable doubt. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the appropriate approach to take with hon. Members of the House?

Mr. Howarth: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. He has made a most important point. It is a most cavalier attitude if the House is saying that in this case a former Member of Parliament's entire life can be destroyed, completely shattered, simply on the balance of probabilities. That is not good enough. I do not think that Sir Gordon Downey's compelling evidence—his words—is compelling in the least. He has failed to say how much Neil Hamilton took. He has failed to say when he took it. He has failed to say how he took it. Above all, he has failed to say what happened to the money when he had taken it. As to how much he had taken, Sir Gordon is instructive. In volume I of the first report, at page 122, he says:
The total amount received by Mr Hamilton is unclear, but it is unlikely to have been less than that taken by Mr Smith (between £18,000 and £25,000).

Mr. Christopher Leslie: That is a lot of money.

Mr. Howarth: It is a lot of money, but it is no basis upon which a former Comptroller and Auditor General should charge a Member of this House and say
it is unlikely to have been less than
while also saying,
The total amount … is unclear".
I do not believe that a servant of the House—the Chairman of the Committee tells us that that is what he is—has any business making that kind of accusation.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) has said from a sedentary position that it was a lot of money. Sir Gordon also charged Mr. Hamilton with failing to declare a one-month consultancy, which added up to £667 and which he described as a material sum of money. So Mr. Hamilton has been stuffed both ways—£667 is judged a serious amount of money when it comes to non-registration of a consultancy, but between £18,000 and £25,000 is a cavalier amount of money.
It is instructive to read what Sir Gordon says in the report about what happened to the money. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said that we must deal with the appearance, but that is absolutely breathtaking. To suggest that just because the public think that something wrong was committed, we must therefore go along with that, is a most extraordinary attitude. It is gravely damaging in one who is a member of the Committee, which should operate on the basis of fact alone and not on the basis of conjecture.
The Chairman of the Committee has said that it has not been possible to find hard evidence either way. Of course, it would be possible because Sir Gordon has gone through


Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton's bank accounts, building society accounts and all other accounts. He cannot find the money. What does he say about that in the report? He uses the following words:
I am unable to shed any light on what became of this money … Given the relatively modest sums involved, and the fact that the payments were spread over a period of more than two years, the absence of such documentary confirmation of their receipt is perhaps not surprising.
That is not an acceptable judgment on which to condemn a man who has given great service to the House; a man who has given great service as a Minister; and great service to the country. He should not be condemned on the basis of such cavalier behaviour. The House ignores those facts at its peril.

Shona McIsaac: Is it also right that the House should also ignore the corroborative circumstantial evidence which is in the Commissioner's report, such as that provided by the telephone message pads, which suggest that Mr. Hamilton was, to use the words in the report, "soliciting" for the preparation of payments? Should we also ignore such evidence or should we regard it as compelling circumstantial evidence?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady is a new member of the Committee and a new Member of the House, but—

Shona McIsaac: I am capable of judging a case.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady does not need to get too excited because I was about to deal with whether that evidence was compelling or not. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Lady would be interested in considering what was the corroborative evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am dealing with it. As for the message pads, the messages were taken by staff, and I want to deal with the staff.

Shona McIsaac: Rose—

Mr. Howarth: No, I will not give way because time is getting on.

Miss Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will give way to my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, she is a lady as well.

Miss Widdecombe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the exchange between him and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) provides an ample demonstration of the reasons why at least two of us on the Committee wanted to go through the evidence and test it thoroughly? Surely it amply demonstrates the exact problem that we faced — there was one piece of evidence followed by another, another and another, which we wanted to test.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, with whom I agree entirely. That is why some of us on the Conservative Benches at least, and, I believe, elsewhere in the House, are concerned about the findings of the Committee because there has not been an opportunity to

test Mr. Hamilton's arguments, let alone those of other people who have not been called at all. Sir Gordon has no direct evidence that Mr. Hamilton received the cash, or what he did with it if he did receive it. He has to rely on the evidence of witnesses who are Fayed employees.
It is interesting that, in the case of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), Sir Gordon said:
They cannot all be telling the truth and this has underlined the crucial importance of seeking independent corroboration for the allegations.
Sir Gordon did not explain why Al Fayed's employees were not independent in the case of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, but suddenly became so in Mr. Hamilton's case. It is up to Sir Gordon Downey to explain that.
These events occurred 10 years ago, and these witnesses have a recall about Neil Hamilton that they have about nobody else. I do not want to bore the House with the details, but I shall give a couple of examples. Mr. Philip Bromfield sat at the desk in Park lane. He apparently remembered giving envelopes to Tim Smith, who we now know did not receive any envelopes from Park lane, so Mr. Bromfield's evidence should be questioned. Tim Smith was paid on seven or eight occasions, but he never collected an envelope from Park lane.
Mr. Bromfield remembered Mr. Hamilton, but failed to remember Francesca Pollard. Those of us who have been in the House for a while will know that Francesca Pollard was being paid by Fayed to write nasty things about Tiny Rowland. Every month for over four years she collected £2,000 in brown envelopes, but Mr. Bromfield could not remember her collecting those 40 envelopes. How can we rely on that evidence? There is plenty more where that came from, but I shall not trouble the House with it.

Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend accept that the point of this debate, which will last only three hours or less, should not be to argue the toss about these detailed aspects of evidence? The question that the House should ask is whether this accused man should be allowed to cross-examine his accusers. Is it right for the House to abrogate that role, and for the Committee Chairman to say that we do not have time? That is what we should be arguing about.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right, but it is also important to draw attention to some of the detail, given some of the comments that have been made in support of Sir Gordon Downey. There is considerable evidence that Fayed employees were not suitably independent to be relied on in this important matter.
I think that Mr. Fayed has done immeasurable damage to the House. He congratulated Neil Hamilton on his appointment as a Minister, but was galled because of his failure to buy Mr. Hamilton, who acted with total propriety, unlike the Minister for Public Health. When he was told by his civil servants that he could handle House of Fraser matters, he handed the papers over to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Miss Bozek gave the game away when she wrote of Mr. Hamilton in The Mail on Sunday:
We thought he would be tremendously helpful to us. We were very disappointed that he wasn't prepared to help. … When he obtained a position that could have been really useful he opted out. He never even replied to Mr. Al Fayed's letter of congratulations.
Mr. Fayed was fed up because he could not buy a Conservative Minister. He could not get his case overturned at the European Court of Human Rights, he could not get the Minister to do his bidding, and he could not get a meeting with the Prime Minister, so off he went to The Guardian. He is the source not only of this problem, but of the cash-for-questions allegations, which was the scam that The Sunday Times ran about Mr. Graham Riddick and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). He is the man who accused my right hon. and learned Friend the former Home Secretary of having taken £1 million in bribes. Twenty-four other Members have been victims of this man Fayed.
I believe that Sir Gordon Downey gave too much weight to what Fayed said. He was prepared to take the word of a man proved by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors to be a liar; a man who has not stopped short of raiding someone's safe box; a man who even said of the late Princess of Wales that he had heard her dying words. I believe that there is a catalogue of shameful activities on the part of this man, and that he is responsible for bringing the House into disrepute. The House may well decide tonight that it wants to accept the report and get it out of the way—my colleagues on the Front Bench may say, "We have other things to do in our careers, and we ought not to become involved in this business"—but I tell the House that, if we do that, we shall be in serious trouble. This man will not go away: he will stop at nothing.
I also believe that there are beginnings—there are rumblings. People outside the House are already concerned about the way in which the matter is being handled. They feel that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I cite just Mr. Anthony Bevins—talking about "the Tatton one"—Mr. Chris Moncrieff and Mr. Paul Johnson.
I hope that the House will have second thoughts, and will feel able to support my amendment.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I do not want to rehearse the evidence given in the Hamilton affair this evening, for the reasons set out by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in her intervention. We can go back and forth, and we shall get nowhere. We cannot retry the matter on the Floor of the House.
I shall follow what was said by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), because I want to know what will happen in the future. How are we to change procedures? We are dealing with a matter of natural justice. I believe that I can endorse Sir Gordon's report—I have no trouble in doing that—but that is not the issue. The issue is whether, having endorsed the report personally, I, as an individual Member of Parliament, am satisfied that Mr. Hamilton has been heard on appeal. He has not received an appeal, and my view is that we must find a way of providing for that at some stage in the future. I shall say more about that later.
Let me trace the background to what has happened, and show why we are in our present quandary. Nolan recommended that post-prima facie inquiries should be carried out by the Committee. In other words, he set a threshold: once an inquiry had reached the prima facie

stage and it had been established that there was a case, the matter should go to the Committee. The Select Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that as well, in paragraph 5 of its first report; but it was never implemented by the Committee.
We have been in default of the first report of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life since the beginning of the operations of this Committee. In only one case have we stopped at the prima facie point, as far as I can recall: I refer to the case of the gentleman whom I believe is now the shadow Home Secretary. In nearly all our inquiries, we have repeatedly asked the Commissioner to pass the prima facie stage. In doing so, we have compromised the Nolan recommendations, and also compromised the recommendations of the first report on standards in public life.
This particular case was complicated by a reference from the Speaker that wore neither a standards hat nor a privileges hat; but the same procedure was applied. The first special report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges recommended:
The Commissioner will then determine where there is prima facie evidence of a case to answer and, where possible, reach conclusions on whether the allegations have been substantiated.
Those words "reach conclusions" are all-important. The moment we asked the Commissioner to reach conclusions, we were in default of the recommended procedures, and were effectively negating the requirement that the Committee itself carry out an inquiry.
The House might ask why that happened. The answer is simple: it was for the convenience of the Committee. Members realised that it would be impossible to sit and adjudicate on all those cases as if we were a court of law. Members of Parliament do not sit on juries and I presume that one reason why is that we simply do not have the time. I am not a juror. I am not in a position to sit and to hear a whole case and nor was any member of that Committee.
Lord Nolan's original recommendations were fundamentally flawed in that area and I take my share of responsibility because I was one of those people who went to the Nolan committee, asked for an ethics registrar, as I called him, and referred to the need for the committee to be the appellate body. I was wrong and I should have learned from my experience.
A House of Commons Committee cannot sit in a quasi-judicial form and carry out the function of an appellate body. My reasons for saying that are controversial.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Let me finish just the next stage and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I have six examples as to why those Committees can be meddled with politically. Last week in my office, during an interview with a professor of politics from a famous university, I learnt that he had interviewed a prominent Member of Parliament on those matters, who had told him that the John Browne inquiry in the late 1980s, which came before a quasi-judicial Committee, the Select Committee on Members' Interests, was the subject of influence by the Whips. That prominent hon. Member also alleged that the Aitken inquiry was influenced by the Whips. Those were in quasi-judicial conditions.
I know for a fact that the Grylls inquiry of 1990 was interfered with. Why? Because I was there and I watched it happen. I called for him to give evidence to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I was blocked by a Conservative majority on the Committee, yet that evidence was critical during the libel case of Mr. Hamilton; indeed, it was one of the reasons why the Hamilton trial collapsed. That is well established. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is agreeing with me. That Committee was meddled with and my attempts to have Sir Michael Grylls brought before the Committee to answer detailed questions were blocked. Clearly, in so far as I was not able to bring him before the Committee, the result was that justice was not done.
In the case of the Hamilton report, the Select Committee on Members' Interests was manipulated. That was what led to my complaint in the case of Mr. Mitchell, the former hon. Member for Gedling. I can reveal for the first time that we had absolute, clear and incontrovertible evidence from a member of the former Select Committee on Members' Interests, which, if it had been brought before the Committee, would have clearly shown that Mr. Mitchell was acting for the Tory Whips office during that inquiry. It came from one of the Tory members of that former Committee. That Committee was meddled with.
Early this year, the Mitchell inquiry came before the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Committee, which is supposed to be manned by people of independence, was blocked when it came to calling additional witnesses—a list of witnesses had been submitted by Committee members to its Chairman. We were prevented from calling additional witnesses in the Mitchell inquiry into what happened in the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1992. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) joined with others to block additional evidence being given to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head: perhaps he would like to intervene. Does he recall what happened in those debates? He was one of those who said that we could take no more evidence in the inquiry into Mr. Mitchell. By doing that, he further proved that quasi-judicial proceedings in Parliament do not work in the way that they should.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is trying to divert attention from the subject under discussion because he is worried about the role that he played on the Committee. I shall answer his extraordinary charge against me. Under no circumstances was I a party to trying to suppress evidence on any Committee on which I served. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if there had been any further material evidence—I do not remember him presenting any—I should certainly not have blocked it. There is no justification whatever for the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary and wild accusations against me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps my final example will convince the House. It relates to the inquiry that some members of the Committee tried to get into the blind trust of the Leader of the Opposition at that time, now the Prime Minister. The conversations in Committee at

the time were remarkable. People wanted a show trial, although they knew that my right hon. Friend was complying directly and to the letter with the recommendations that had been given to him by the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges. They knew that my right hon. Friend's private office had been advised.

Sir Archie Hamilton (Epson and Ewell): Rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to reveal yet another matter which we agreed never to speak about outside the Chamber. He acted thoroughly politically and had to apologise to the Committee. That is the procedure that we are told is quasi-judicial and operated by independent people. The Committee cannot carry out that function.

Sir Archie Hamilton: Will' the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, I will not give way.
The Standards and Privileges Committee could not carry out an appeal inquiry because it is not competent to do so in its appeal form. It was capable of accepting an independent report from the Commissioner and treating it in the way that it should be treated. However, it was not capable of acting as an appellate body without turning into a political forum, as happened before the last general election.
I want to be constructive. What is the answer and what is the way forward? The answer is not to go to the courts because people with large pocketfuls of cash will make sure that their cases are never heard. That will carry rich Members through general elections and there will be no justice because those people will bring about delay by using the money that is available to them.
Those matters must always be settled within the procedures of the House. I have two recommendations. The first is that we implement paragraph 10 of the recommendations from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life. That recommends that we legislate on the functions and duties of the Commissioner. The post should be made statutory in the same way as that of the Comptroller and Auditor General was made statutory under the National Audit Act 1983.
I believe in an appeal procedure and some people think that the Commissioner's role should be strengthened by the use of added assessors while the Committee would adopt a quasi-judicial review status. That is not my view because it still does not provide for the appeal procedure to which the likes of Hamilton and those people who think that they have a right to contest the Commissioner's judgments are entitled. They should not bring spurious appeals and I do not think that Mr. Hamilton would bring a spurious appeal. However, he would believe that, in terms of natural justice, he has a right to be heard.
My provisional recommendation is that, where an appeal is sought against a judgment, and where the Select Committee is prepared to support such an appeal by way of a Committee resolution, assessors should be appointed to review evidence and to take further evidence if necessary. It might be possible to include the Chairman of the Committee, with the judicial assessors, in the review procedure. The Commissioner and any counsel appointed


to the original inquiry could be available to advise that appeal inquiry on the reasons for the Commissioner's original findings. The review body would report its findings and conclusions to the full Committee.
That is my provisional view. That is what effectively, and without going into detail, I have been arguing over with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford for months. I wanted an appeal procedure; he wanted to use a Committee that I do not believe could be relied upon, in any circumstances, to act as a proper appellate body. I wanted a different procedure. That is what I have argued for tonight.
I appeal to those people who have formerly sat on the Nolan committee and now sit on the Neill committee to look at these matters again because I do not believe that Parliament is capable of deciding them. We need the voice of those outside, presenting their recommendations. We need a proper appeal system that is not politically adulterated.

Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been accused of some peculiar things this evening. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has just made a vague accusation about my suppressing evidence. I do not know what he is talking about. I hope that you, Madam Speaker, can advise me on some way in which I can have redress on this matter or at least find out precisely of what he is accusing me. The hon. Gentleman's emotional attack on me may possibly have something to do with the fact that he put down 55 early-day motions on behalf of Mr. Al Fayed and vociferously and vituperously tried to prevent me from calling Mr. Al Fayed before the Committee. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, it is a point of frustration. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration because I have not been able to call him. I regret that I have not been able to call all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who had a right to be heard this evening. We did not start the debate until 7.30 pm and I now have to take the winding-up speeches.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I shall be brief, as I know that the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wants about 10 minutes for her remarks.
Tonight's debate underlines one thing above all others—that we are suffering from the untidy consequences of our own actions in this House. I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Select Committee, agrees with me on that point. It is important that we look again, with great care, at our procedures.
The two words "natural justice" have cropped up time and again during the debate and in the publicity leading up to it. There is not a single right hon. or hon. Member in any part of the House who would not wish to see natural justice done. It is therefore important that we look at the matter again. The Opposition will want to give careful thought to making constructive proposals and to discussing them with the Government and with you, Madam Speaker, to try to ensure that we come to a tidier solution.
The other thing that we must recognise is that one former hon. Member's name has dominated the proceedings this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made an impassioned speech. He has no need to apologise for friendship. He has no need to apologise for speaking in defence of his former hon. Friend and his friend still. However, we must all recognise that the admitted actions of Mr. Hamilton, for which he has apologised, did themselves justify the report that we are discussing.
The House has to realise also that Mr. Hamilton has not been found guilty of corruption, of fraud or of any other criminal act. It is important that that message goes forth today from the House.
Mr. Hamilton can no longer be dealt with by the House. Had he still been an hon. Member, the Committee would have recommended his suspension for an appreciable time, which is a significant punishment. The Committee did not, however, say that it would recommend his expulsion from the House. It is important that the House recognises that fact. It is important that Mr. Hamilton, as he attempts to pick up the tatters of his career, recognises that fact. Moreover, it is important that those who might be in a position to benefit legitimately from his talents—he has many of them—recognise it.
In the debate, the House has had to examine the report that has been produced by the very right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and his Committee. I cannot pretend that I would necessarily agree with everything that the members of the Committee said in that report, and I fully understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) felt that they had to dissent from some of the report's major recommendations. Like you, Madam Speaker, I understand their sense of frustration at not being able to speak in the debate.
What is at stake is the integrity of the House and of all those who attempt to serve within it. For that reason, if there is a Division, we shall support the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. We support him with a heavy heart, however, believing that our procedures—recently evolved—are very far from perfect and that they need immediate attention and significant reform.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Tempers have at times been heated in this debate, which, nevertheless, has been of value to the House. Some very important points have been made in it, which may have long-term implications for our future proceedings. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that we should thank the members of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges for their time and effort. It is not easy to serve on such a Committee, as it bears a heavy responsibility. Moreover, very serious issues were raised in the inquiry. The House should also thank Sir Gordon Downey and his staff for their work on the report.
At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said that he thought that—as a Committee and as a structure—the Standards and Privileges Committee had worked well in most of the cases that had been referred to it. Speaking especially as a former Committee member, I completely concur with him in that belief.
Hon. Members should think carefully before we introduce changes in our procedures. Certainly, we should think carefully before we change our procedures on the basis of, I hope, the worst-case complaint about an individual hon. Member, which the House will have to deal with. Perhaps changes are necessary, but we should not rush into them on the basis of what is, I hope, the worst case.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater made a point also about the Committee's membership. In his speech, and in representations made to me privately, he said that I should have chaired the Committee. I was flattered by his comments, and by those of the Nolan committee. He said that the Committee's chairmanship should not be political, and I agree. Although I think that it is possible to wear two hats—as Leader of the House and as a member of the Government—it was extremely important that the Committee should be seen to be free from political interference. I know that that view was shared by the former Leader of the House, who, in the previous Parliament, had to chair the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I had to deal with that important consideration.
Nevertheless, the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater on the Committee's membership were patronising. To members of the public, the fact that we have new hon. Members on the Committee might be regarded as a very good thing. Members of the public might even say that we needed some new members on the Committee and some new influences in dealing with the matter. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the present Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), is an extremely senior Member of the House, more so than me.
The shadow Leader of the House reminded us why we are discussing these issues. She went back to the establishment of the Nolan committee. Obviously, many hon. Members were not keen on implementing Nolan's recommendations, but the basic question at that stage was whether there should be self-regulation or whether we should hand over such matters to the courts. The fact that we opted for self-regulation is still justified, and I believe that the general framework of a Select Committee on Standards and Privileges can work. We have made progress with the new procedures and in cases when complaints have been made. For the first time, the House has a code of conduct and if all Members follow that code, we shall have fewer problems in future.

Mr. David Winnick: I went along with self-regulation. I took the view that the House should be in a position to regulate its own affairs, and I rejected the call made by people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that an outside body should do the job. However, having listened closely to this evening's debate without intervening, I am coming to the view that if the issue produces such controversy and, indeed, if it is largely along party lines, self-regulation might not work and we might have to go to an outside body.

Mrs. Taylor: That may be the case at the end of the day, but we are not at that stage yet. There are things that we can do to make self-regulation work.
I should like to say a few words in response to some of the general points raised, especially those in connection with bribery and the law on corruption. Nolan said that the Government should clarify the law relating to the bribery of, or the receipt of a bribe by, a Member of Parliament. I remind the House that the Government have said that they will clarify the law on corruption, and the Home Secretary has published an options paper with a view to legislation. That document is to be considered by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which is due to have its first meeting next week. I hope that the House will accept progress in that direction.
I remind the House that when the appeals procedure was first put to the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Clerk of the House told us that there could be problems in adopting such a procedure because the members of the Sub-Committee would also be members of the main Committee.
As I said, we are talking about a new system of self-regulation. Until this case arose, there were no complaints about the procedure. I do not think that there are general grounds for complaint tonight.
Mention has been made of the degree of evidence required in the Hamilton case. Sir Gordon's memorandum said:
Indeed, the substance of the case stemmed from the abandoned civil libel action where the standard of proof would have been `balance of probabilities'. In practice my approach was more stringent than this".
The part of the eighth report of the Standards and Privileges Committee that was accepted unanimously stated:
We have carefully examined Mr. Hamilton's representations. Essentially, these repeat the evidence he gave to the Commissioner for Standards. We do not consider that Mr. Hamilton has brought forward relevant new evidence.
That was what the Committee said after it had heard from Neil Hamilton.
Tonight, the House has been asked to approve the seventh and eighth reports of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I hope and trust that the House will do so, because the reputation of this House and its ability to regulate itself are at stake. The shadow Leader of the House said that the Committee had been able to draw a line under the Hamilton affair. The House can do that this evening if it agrees with the report that Mr. Hamilton's conduct fell seriously and persistently below the standards that the House is entitled to expect of its Members.
I hope that the House will reject the amendment and support the motion. Such a decision will help to repair some of the damage done to the reputation of this House by the actions of Neil Hamilton and others.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Seventh and Eighth Reports of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 240, 261).

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Cynog Dafis and Mr. Matthew Taylor be added to the Environmental Audit Committee. —[Mr. Jamieson.]

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That Mr. Stephen Day be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Mr. Philip Hammond be added to the Committee. — [Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Merchant Fleet

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Jamieson.]

10 pm

Mr. Ivan Henderson: Madam Speaker, may I take this opportunity—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Wait a moment, please. This is the hon. Gentleman's maiden speech, so could those hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quickly, because others want to hear him?

Mr. Henderson: I thank the Minister for Transport in London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), for coming here to respond to this important debate and to my maiden speech.
It is impossible to represent the constituency of Harwich without having a feel for the sea and all that is connected with it. One of the first recorded naval battles involving an English king took place in what is now Harwich harbour, when King Alfred defeated a fleet of marauding Danes. Since then, the spot has been known as Bloody Point.
Far less bloody was the most recent skirmish in Harwich, which resulted in my election as the first Labour Member of Parliament for the constituency. Fortunately, my opponent was not a marauding Viking, but lain Sproat—the then Sports Minister. While the encounter was keenly fought, I would like to record that it was a good-tempered and honourable affair. I will never forget the generosity and dignity with which Iain Sproat was the first to congratulate me at the count.
Iain Sproat had at various times been both Shipping and Heritage Minister—two issues undeniably linked with the Harwich area. No part of the constituency is more than a few miles from the sea, and all the major population areas are on the coast. The sea plays a vital role in the local tourist industry, and the popular resorts of Clacton, Frinton, Walton and Dovercourt, with their beaches, piers and entertainment facilities. The sea is equally important to the town which gives the constituency its name.
The sea, through the ships and port-related industries, has given Harwich a place in history. Harwich was the first landfall for the ships which defeated the Spanish armada, and was the site of a Royal Navy dockyard, established during the wars against the Dutch. As HMS Badger, its large natural harbour gave it a vital role during the second world war.
Throughout history, the Merchant Navy fleet that has served this country so well has been at the very heart of Harwich, providing employment for those living right across the east of England, and not only in the immediate area of the Harwich constituency. It is for that reason that someone like me—who has lived in Harwich all his life—is desperate to see our maritime heritage preserved and its future secured.
Before the privatisation of Sealink by the Conservative Government, thousands of British seafarers were based in Harwich. Daily passenger and freight services linked Harwich with the continent, all but a handful of which were British-flagged, British-crewed ships. Now there is only one—one freight ship with 30 or 40 British seafarers aboard.
Such decimation of the local Merchant Navy fleet has had a massive impact on the economies of all the towns in the immediate area. I am aware that the same story can be told all over the country, and that flags of convenience and investment by other Governments in their own seafaring industry have affected most ports where our proud maritime heritage has been built up over centuries. I now believe that it is time that everyone became aware of that.
Our Merchant Navy fleet is a national asset, and this country's maritime industry is desperately in need of the support it so richly deserves. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has stated publicly that the Labour Government are committed to working with those in the industry to help to develop its economic potential, and so reverse the decline and safeguard our maritime future. He has made it clear that that includes preventing unfair competition and ensuring that our own shipping industry is not further eroded by the exploitation of the freedom of the seas. That is what I wanted to hear, and I assure the House that the people of Harwich also wanted to hear it.
Our seafarers have traditionally been regarded as highly trained, highly skilled professionals. That reputation has been earned, and it is something that a British Government should be proud to promote and keen to build on. Sadly, as we all know, the previous Government were content to see it undermined, undervalued and underused in the name of market forces.
Market forces do not maintain safety standards, nor can they be used as an excuse for allowing the exploitation of third-world nationals who have never had the advantage, training, experience or expertise of our own seafarers, and who can be forced to work for meagre wages. At a time when the global economy ensures a vital role for transportation by sea, we should be promoting excellence, not allowing it to rot on the dole queue.
A couple of months ago, the BBC asked to spend a day with me in order to make a programme about the new Labour Member of Parliament for Harwich. I was more than happy to oblige. It was decided to make the programme on the new high-speed ferry link between Harwich and the Hook of Holland. The programme was very good, and making it was a most enjoyable experience; the ship is an incredible achievement, providing a fast, smooth and pleasant way to cross from England and Holland. Unfortunately, I had to accept that we were making the crossing on a Dutch-crewed ferry; we had to do that because no British seafarers are any longer employed on that passenger ferry route.
For 100 years, there had been British seafarers manning the passenger ferries between Harwich and the Hook of Holland. My election came just after the last of them were cast aside because it was cheaper for the ferry company to employ Dutch seafarers. The policy of the Dutch Government has been so successful that, during 1996, 50 new vessels were attracted to the Dutch flag. I congratulate the Dutch Government on their sense of vision—if only the previous Government in this country had had one eye open, we might not be experiencing our current difficulties.
We are on the very edge: those with experience are disappearing fast, and the training that ensured a ready supply of young, highly motivated seamen to replace them has long since been denied to our youth. The Government have already identified the problem and are preparing to act. Support for maritime training—SMART—will commence next April, and will not only ensure that training is available but will make explicit provision in standards of training for the modern era. A few years ago, I would not have described it as smart—I would have called it common sense, but unfortunately the Tories did not agree.
All the evidence points to the simple conclusion that high standards increase efficiency, improve safety and reduce the risk of accidental pollution of the seas. As one who represents a constituency containing important areas of coastal wildlife and towns reliant on tourism, coastal pollution is a major concern. We are all familiar with the effects of oil washing up on our coastline. Without a doubt, prevention is better than cure, and ensuring that ships moving along our coastline are manned by highly disciplined crews will reduce the risk of accidental pollution. These areas must be tackled internationally. To do that, we must take the lead. We must show how ensuring the best training results in the best service and, in the long run, the best value for money. We must show the rest of the world that we mean what we say; promoting our own highly efficient industry is, after all, the best way to prove that.
Every hon. Member does what he or she can to promote their constituency. I am fortunate in having a constituency that includes so much that is worthy of promoting. The Minister will no doubt recall her visit to Harwich, when I was able to show her the Electric Palace, the oldest purpose-built cinema in the country. Thousands of Royal Navy veterans trained across the river at HMS Ganges and have fond memories of Harwich. Millions of holidaymakers have enjoyed a day trip to the seaside at Clacton, Walton or Frinton; and many millions still travel through our beautiful countryside on their way to crossing the North sea to mainland Europe.
The Harwich constituency has the ports, the industrial capacity, the tourists and leisure facilities—and the knowledge and expertise to make the most of all of them. We are proud of our history and heritage, and we are determined to build a secure and prosperous future. The same applies to the British Merchant Navy.
Samuel Pepys is regarded by many historians as the saviour of the British Navy. He it was who arranged for a naval dockyard to be built at Harwich, and he brought another man, Anthony Deane, back to his home town to oversee it. Pepys was the Member for Harwich, and in 1679 Deane joined him as the town's other Member of Parliament. I am the first Harwich man since that day to be elected Member for Harwich. I was born within a few hundred yards of the dockyard. I went to a school that bore Sir Anthony Deane's name. Until this May, I had spent all my working life in shipping-related work.
All around the country, seafarers, dock workers, ship builders and shipping agents want a strong and vibrant future for our maritime industry. It is our responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that such a future is secured.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) on his maiden speech on this extremely important topic. It is important because 95 per cent. of all our imports and exports come in and leave by sea. At £2.6 billion, shipping is our fourth biggest service earner, and we carry 4 per cent. of world trade in our vessels, which on the whole are well managed, technologically advanced and run with some of the highest safety standards in the world.
Shipping's contribution to British invisibles is enormous, and maritime London's pre-eminence relies on the raw material which former masters and chief engineers provide. They bring their expertise to the offices of the Admiralty solicitors, Lloyd's of London, the Institute of London Underwriters, the Baltic exchange, general average adjusters and the merchant bankers who finance the fleets. The industry is fundamental to maritime London and the whole service sector that depends on it.
I have an interest to declare, in that, before arriving in the House, I used to run a company of general average adjusters—so my interest in the debate is more than a passing one. In that capacity, I was invited last week to give the keynote address at the European ship managers conference in Glasgow, on the subject of crewing and training.
I am delighted to say that, after 18 years during which the Conservative Government went through more Shipping Ministers than Liz Taylor went through husbands in the same time, the shipowners and managers to whom I spoke in Glasgow expressed their profound thanks that this Government have a transport team—including the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport in London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) —who are clearly committed to the maritime industry. My right hon. and hon. Friends are going to be around for a long time; they understand the industry, and they want to get it right.
In limited time, I do not want to dwell on the former Government's record—the decline in our fleet by two thirds, the 50 per cent. decline in the contribution of the UK-owned fleet to the UK service sector, the 55 per cent. decrease in its contribution to gross domestic product. I shall focus on the fact that the numbers of British seafarers have declined by 60 per cent. since 1980, from 52,000 to 20,000.
The Cardiff report shows why it is fundamental that the Government take the actions that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich mentioned to put the support for maritime training programme into effect. The report predicts a frightening shortfall, and the implications for the whole UK maritime sector are equally frightening.
I am glad that the Government have taken the initiative on SMART. Unfortunately, it has come late in the day, but that is because the Government were not previously in a position to put it into effect. I am delighted that they have done so, and I am sure that the Ministers will have our full support in all that they are doing to improve crewing and training in this country.

10.15

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) on an excellent maiden speech,

and on his generosity in allowing an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich has chosen for his maiden speech a topic of particular importance to the Government, a fact highlighted by the presence on these benches of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and many other colleagues. The fact that the matter is not of importance to the Conservative party is emphasised by the absolute emptiness of the Opposition green Benches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich brings a wealth of personal experience and commitment to what is not only his constituency but his birthplace. He described the degree to which the sea has influenced his constituency, from King Alfred's day to the present time.
The reliance of Harwich, and the United Kingdom, on the sea remains undiminished. Shipping is crucial to all of us, a fact perhaps not sufficiently appreciated, for 95 per cent. in weight of our trade—77 per cent. in value—is carried by sea. Ferries to and from our islands carry more than 55 million passengers a year. The UK shipping industry and maritime London contribute substantially to the UK's balance of payments.
Without shipping, our country would not have defended our interests in the past; without shipping we could not maintain our quality of life today. We all rely on the sea, whether for our food, for the goods we use, for transport, for leisure or for our defence.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich said, in recent years we have witnessed a dramatic decline in the size of the UK merchant fleet and in the number of trained British seafarers. That cannot be allowed to continue. The Government are committed to halting the decline and giving the industry its due prominence. Let there be no doubt: we believe that a revival in the UK fleet is long overdue.
That is why we have established a shipping working group to see how Government and industry, working in partnership, can reverse the years of decline. The group's first meeting takes place this week. It will include representatives from the Chamber of Shipping, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers and the Transport and General Workers Union. It will consider how to obtain the maximum economic and environmental benefit from shipping, how to reverse the decline in the UK fleet, how to increase the employment of UK seafarers, and how to encourage the wider maritime industry to commit more resources to seafarer training.
Our object must be to encourage a high-quality shipping sector, able to flourish in increasingly competitive markets. I hope that the group will maintain a healthy balance between exploring innovative and well-constructed ideas and maintaining the momentum and sense of urgency necessary for such an important issue. I hope that it will not be another talking shop; it is action that counts.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is keen for the group to produce a package in time for inclusion in our White Paper in the spring.
Shipping is a high-tech, high-quality industry, demanding drive, commitment and determination. A competent, well-trained crew must be the most significant factor, not only in terms of the contribution to individual companies but in the wider context of maritime safety and environmental protection—a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich. We must do all we can in this, the International Year of the Seafarer, to ensure that the prospects for that invaluable national asset—the British seafarer—are not neglected.
The United Kingdom already has a high standard of seafarer training, but many of the ships that call at our ports, pass our shores or carry UK passengers are crewed by seafarers who have not been trained in the UK. It is therefore important to secure high standards of training worldwide. Proper implementation of the International Maritime Organisation's revised standards of training, certification and watchkeeping convention will be central to achieving that objective. The UK played a leading role in updating STCW, and we have subsequently been determined to apply its provisions promptly and effectively.
When I gave the opening address to the IMO assembly this morning, I reaffirmed our support for the international safety management code, which aims to create a safety culture embracing those on board ship and those ashore. Passenger ships, tankers and bulk carriers must achieve ISM code certification by 1 July 1998. UK ships required to comply are well on course to do so, but many recent reports show that some companies do not take the deadline seriously, and that a large number of ships may not comply in time. Some have even speculated that the deadline might be extended.
The IMO secretary general has stated that the deadline will stand, and the United Kingdom Government fully support that. We shall ensure that effective action is taken to deal with non-compliant ships arriving in our ports after the deadline, and we are working with our European partners to ensure that measures are in place to achieve that throughout the Community.
In addressing the IMO, I focused on implementation, which is the key to improving safety standards around the world. The Government firmly believe that the primary responsibility for safety rests with the flag state. We can no longer accept the apparent abdication of that responsibility by some flag states. The UK is taking the lead at the IMO in developing proposals to ensure that that is dealt with.
I am determined to involve as many parties as I can in the general debate on raising standards. I am particularly concerned that some of the service providers in shipping, such as bankers and insurers, which are crucial to the very existence of the shipping industry, are often not directly involved when policy issues are discussed and decisions on regulations made. I wish to change that.
Next month, as an experiment, I shall host a seminar with representatives from maritime London to hear their ideas about what they can do to help us improve standards. I trust that that will lead to more dialogue in the future. We are also working to ensure that all shipowners have the means to meet their liabilities to third parties. That policy, which is supported by the Chamber

of Shipping, should protect responsible shipowners from unfair competition from operators of sub-standard and uninsured ships.
We shall continue to work to ensure that all UK ships continue to enjoy the navigational rights and freedoms enshrined in the international law of the sea. We are now better able to do that following our accession to the UN convention on the law of the sea this August.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich referred to the importance of training, which must be a priority in any maritime policy that is committed to creating a meaningful and worthwhile future for the British shipping industry. We are under no illusions about the scale of the task required to ensure an adequate supply of seafarers, not only to serve at sea but, ultimately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said, to provide the pool of experience essential for the whole range of maritime-related industries.
Last year's university of Wales report into the UK economy's requirements for people with experience of working at sea concluded that, even to maintain the present maritime status quo at sea and ashore, the industry needs to recruit 1,200 new cadets a year, against a current intake of about 400. Clearly, that problem needs to be addressed urgently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich referred to the new support for maritime training scheme—SMART—which commences next April. SMART will be a flexible long-term vehicle to deliver Government financial assistance for seafarer training. It will improve the delivery of training support by integrating the existing GAFT—Government assistance for training—and docks schemes into a modular training scheme to operate under a single contract and budget.
New modules will make explicit provision for ratings and will provide support for STCW skills upgrading. Although SMART will initially focus funds on the key priorities of new entrants and ratings, its modular nature should mean that it is possible to add other elements, as required and as funding permits.
SMART is simply the vehicle. Whether we are able to make a fundamental difference will depend on the industry's commitment to forging a real partnership, and, in so doing, contributing to the achievement of our common objectives. Government support can therefore only ever provide half of the equation. For any training scheme to make a truly significant impact, the active support of all sides of the industry must be engaged. That is why we will be looking to the industry to make a direct contribution, through actions and financial commitment, to the training of future seafarers.
Although there have been some notable exceptions, for too long much of the maritime-related sector has regarded training as the shipowners' problem, and too many shipowners have simply failed to invest in training. We cannot allow the issue to be side-stepped. If Government are now facing up to their responsibilities, so too must the shipping industry.
I am hopeful that the working group will provide the vital spark necessary to encourage more companies to start training programmes, and for the industry to pledge additional funding to supplement Government support.
With matching levels of drive and commitment, it must surely be possible for this partnership to make real progress towards the common goal of increasing the number of highly trained seafarers.
I conclude by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich for raising such an important issue for discussion. Few can doubt that the industry has reached a critical point. Responsibility falls to both

Government and industry to ensure that we take full advantage of the great opportunities that lie ahead. With world seaborne trade growing at a rate of 4 per cent. a year, we must do all we can to revitalise British shipping, and to take our nation's fair share of the prospective growth.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o ' clock.